Re: pgsql: Teach DSM registry to ERROR if attaching to an uninitialized ent
| От | Nathan Bossart |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pgsql: Teach DSM registry to ERROR if attaching to an uninitialized ent |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | aSIR4Z4U887f_KcQ@nathan обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Teach DSM registry to ERROR if attaching to an uninitialized ent (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Teach DSM registry to ERROR if attaching to an uninitialized ent
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 10:25:48AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 6:09 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote: >> Unpinning/detaching the segment/DSA/dshash table and deleting the DSM >> registry entry in a PG_CATCH block scares me a little, but it might be >> doable. > > It seems a bit weird to be doing explicit unpinning in a PG_CATCH > block. Ideally you'd want to postpone the pinning until initialization > has succeeded, so that if you fail before that, transaction cleanup > takes care of it automatically. Alternatively, destroying what existed > before could be deferred until later, when an as-yet-unfailed > transaction stumbles across the tombstone. Oh, yeah, good idea. > Am I worrying too much? Possibly! But as I said to David on another > thread this morning, it's better to worry on pgsql-hackers before any > problem happens than to start worrying after something bad happens in > a customer situation. I'll give what you suggested a try. It seems reasonable enough. -- nathan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: