Tom Lane wrote: >>> Lastly, the changes to pmdie's SIGINT handling seem quite bogus. >>> Don't you need to transition into WAIT_BACKUP rather than WAIT_BACKENDS >>> state in that case too? Shouldn't you do CancelBackup *before* >>> PostmasterStateMachine? The thing screams of race conditions. > >> I suspect there must be a misunderstanding. >> You cannot really mean that the postmaster should enter WAIT_BACKUP >> state on a fast shutdown request. > > Why not? It'll fall out of the state again immediately in > PostmasterStateMachine, no, if we do a CancelBackup here? I don't think > these two paths of control should be any more different than really > necessary.
We cannot call CancelBackup there because that's exactly the state in which a smart shutdown waits for a superuser to issue pg_stop_backup(). > Well, if there were anything conditional about calling it, then maybe > that argument would hold some water, but the way you've got it here it > *will* get called anyway, just after the PostmasterStateMachine call [...] I see. > The other reason for the remark about race conditions is that the > PostmasterStateMachine call should absolutely be the last thing that > pmdie() does --- putting anything after it is wrong, especially things > that might alter the PM state, as indeed CancelBackup could. I see that too. Thanks for explaining. > If you actually want the behavior you propose, then the only correct way > to implement it is to embed it into the state machine logic, ie, do the > CancelBackup inside PostmasterStateMachine in some state transition > taken after the last child is gone. I've attached a patch that works for me. I hope I got it right. Yours, Laurenz Albe
-- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches