On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 11:20 PM Vitaly Davydov
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Fujii Masao,
>
> Thank you for the review of the patch. Based on your comments I propose
> a new version of the patch.
Thanks for updating the patch!
+ if (got_standby_delay_timeout)
+ SendRecoveryConflictWithBufferPin(RECOVERY_CONFLICT_BUFFERPIN);
+ else if (got_standby_deadlock_timeout)
+ {
Shouldn't we break out of the loop when either got_standby_delay_timeout or
got_standby_deadlock_timeout becomes true? Otherwise, the loop continues with
those flags still set, which could cause SendRecoveryConflictWithBufferPin() to
be called unnecessarily in the subsequent cycles.
+ if (BufferGetRefCount(buffer) <= 1)
Should this be "BufferGetRefCount(buffer) == 1" instead? I don't think
BufferGetRefCount(buffer) should ever return 0 here. If that's correct,
would it make sense to explicitly detect that case, for example:
-----------------
uint32 refcount = BufferGetRefCount(buffer);
Assert(refcount > 0);
if (refcount == 0)
elog(ERROR, "buffer refcount dropped to zero while waiting for
cleanup lock");
if (refcount == 1)
break;
-----------------
> I also added a new tap-test as a part of the patch. I did some changes in the
> tap test to make it stable. Let me know, please, if it should be in a separate
> commit.
Do we really need a new TAP test file for this? We already have
a startup/backend deadlock test in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl. Extending
the deadlock section there to cover this test case seems simpler and easier to
follow than introducing a new t/053_* test.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
