On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 05:19:46PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I realized that this problem is also reported in -hackers and there is
> some discussion there[1]. The patch I proposed seems to be the same as
> the patch Anton A. Melnikov proposed, but Tom does not like it.
This patch was listed in the CF which is why I have begun poking at
it.
Anyway, I have the same opinion, and the first thing I was looking at
are other code paths similar to the one patched here where we expect a
portal to be always active :)
Your patch switches a procedure path where we have assumed for years
that a portal would be active in its error handling. This could hide
problems in the future if for some reason this API begins to get used
in the context where a portal is not active, so logical workers are
IMO doing the wrong thing for the commands they are executing.
Let's move the discussion to the other thread, thanks for the
pointer.
--
Michael