On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:03:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 09:47:55AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Here is a new version of the stopgap/back-branch fix for restore_command.
>> This is more or less a rebased version of v4 with an added stderr message
>> as Andres suggested upthread.
>
> So, this thread has moved around many subjects, still we did not get
> to the core of the issue which is what we should try to do to avoid
> sporadic failures like what the top of the thread is mentioning.
>
> Perhaps beginning a new thread with a patch and a summary would be
> better at this stage? Another thing I am wondering is if it could be
> possible to test that rather reliably. I have been playing with a few
> scenarios like holding the system() call for a bit with hardcoded
> sleep()s, without much success. I'll try harder on that part.. It's
> been mentioned as well that we could just move away from system() in
> the long-term.
I'm happy to create a new thread if needed, but I can't tell if there is
any interest in this stopgap/back-branch fix. Perhaps we should just jump
straight to the long-term fix that Thomas is looking into.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com