On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/17 14:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 5/24/17 15:14, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> All the locking works just fine the way it is in master. The issue with
>>> deadlock with apply comes from the wrong handling of the SIGTERM in the
>>> apply (we didn't set InterruptPending). I changed the SIGTERM handler in
>>> patch 0001 just to die which is actually the correct behavior for apply
>>> workers. I also moved the connection cleanup code to the
>>> before_shmem_exit callback (similar to walreceiver) and now that part
>>> works correctly.
>> I have committed this, in two separate parts.  This should fix the
>> originally reported issue.
>> I will continue to work through your other patches.  I notice there is
>> still a bit of discussion about another patch, so please let me know if
>> there is anything else I should be looking for.
> I have committed the remaining two patches.  I believe this fixes the
> originally reported issue.

IIUC the issue that sync worker could be orphaned and keep running
inside the long COPY is not fixed yet by commit
3c9bc2157a4f465b3c070d1250597568d2dc285f, and should be fixed. Am I
missing something?


Masahiko Sawada
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to