Hi, On 2025-03-17 19:52:02 -0400, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2025-03-14 12:57:51 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 12:23 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > > > 3. Considering errfinish()'s stated goal, a sort of backstop to help > > > > you cancel looping message-spewing code only, I wonder if we should > > > > just restrict the kinds of interrupts it processes, so that it only > > > > calls CFI() if we're definitely throwing ERROR or FATAL? > > > > > > I'm not even sure it'd be safe to ERROR out in all the relevant places... > > > > > > E.g. > > > /* implementation-specific initialization */ > > > smgrsw[reln->smgr_which].smgr_open(reln); > > > > > > /* it is not pinned yet */ > > > reln->pincount = 0; > > > dlist_push_tail(&unpinned_relns, &reln->node); > > > > > > doesn't this mean that ->pincount is uninitialized in case smgr_open() > > > errors > > > out and that we'd loose track of the reln because it wasn't yet added to > > > unpinned_rels? > > > > Ugh, right. > > Patch for that attached.
The patch claimed: > This buglet was introduced in 21d9c3ee4ef7. As that commit is only in HEAD, no > need to backpatch. But looking at it again that's unfortunately not true. Turns out it's not 2024 anymore... Planning to backpatch that part to 17 soon. Greetings, Andres Freund
