On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 13:48, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > > > On 2020/03/04 13:27, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 01:13:19PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >> Yeah, so 0001 patch sets existing wait events to recovery conflict > >> resolution. For instance, it sets (PG_WAIT_LOCK | LOCKTAG_TRANSACTION) > >> to the recovery conflict on a snapshot. 0003 patch improves these wait > >> events by adding the new type of wait event such as > >> WAIT_EVENT_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_SNAPSHOT. Therefore 0001 (and 0002) patch > >> is the fix for existing versions and 0003 patch is an improvement for > >> only PG13. Did you mean even 0001 patch doesn't fit for back-patching? > > Yes, it looks like a improvement rather than bug fix. >
Okay, understand. > > I got my eyes on this patch set. The full patch set is in my opinion > > just a set of improvements, and not bug fixes, so I would refrain from > > back-backpatching. > > I think that the issue (i.e., "waiting" is reported twice needlessly > in PS display) that 0002 patch tries to fix is a bug. So it should be > fixed even in the back branches. So we need only two patches: one fixes process title issue and another improve wait event. I've attached updated patches. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
v2-0002-Improve-wait-events-for-recovery-conflict-resolut.patch
Description: Binary data
v2-0001-Fix-process-title-update-during-recovery-conflict.patch
Description: Binary data
