Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_ctl: Detect current standby state from pg_control

2016-09-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/26/16 8:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I think that it's 100% pointless for get_control_dbstate > to be worried about transient CRC failures. If writes to pg_control > aren't atomic then we have problems enormously larger than whether > "pg_ctl promote" throws an error or not. The new code was

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_ctl: Detect current standby state from pg_control

2016-09-26 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Coverity thinks that this patch introduced a bunch of >> null-pointer-dereference hazards, and AFAICS it is right. >> The change in get_controlfile()'s API is completely

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_ctl: Detect current standby state from pg_control

2016-09-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> pg_ctl: Detect current standby state from pg_control > > Coverity thinks that this patch introduced a bunch of > null-pointer-dereference hazards, and AFAICS it is right. > The

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_ctl: Detect current standby state from pg_control

2016-09-25 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > pg_ctl: Detect current standby state from pg_control Coverity thinks that this patch introduced a bunch of null-pointer-dereference hazards, and AFAICS it is right. The change in get_controlfile()'s API is completely broken and needs to be undone.