On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 18:58 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 09:45 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > This issue is 100% reproduceable. > > IMHO there in no problem in that behaviour. If somebody requests a > backup then we should wait for it to complete. Kevin's suggestion of > pg_fail_backup() is the only sensible conclusion there because it gives > an explicit way out of deadlock. > > ISTM the problem is that you didn't test. Steps 3 and 4 should have been > reversed. Perhaps we should put something in the docs to say "and test". > The correct resolution is to put in an archive_command that works. The problem isn't that it is a bad archive_command, it is that PostgreSQL has no way to deal with this gracefully. Yes people should test but are we dealing with the real world or not? > > So I don't see this as something that needs fixing for 9.0. There is > already too much non-essential code there, all of which needs to be > tested. I don't think adding in new corner cases to "help" people makes > any sense until we have automated testing that allows us to rerun the > regression tests to check all this stuff still works. This will bite us if we release like this. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
