Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com, hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com, noah(at)leadboat(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2
Date: 2012-12-05 14:21:02
Message-ID: 4325.1354717262@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2012-12-05 19:06:55 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> So what status are we on? Are we going to release 9.2.2 as it is?
>> Or withdraw current 9.2.2?

> Releasing as-is sounds good. As Tom wrote upthread:

> On 2012-12-04 21:27:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is not a regression because the pause logic is broken this same
>> way since 9.1. So I no longer think that we need a rewrap.

> Imo the bug isn't all that critical, it cause confusion but no data corruption
> or such.

The real reason it's not critical is that this is a "don't do that" case
anyway. Unpatched, the system hangs up, but if it were patched you'd
just get a failure complaining "requested stop before consistent state
reached" or whatever the wording is. Since we've seen only one report
about that since 9.1 came out, the error isn't being made often enough
to justify a panic re-release. We'll just fix it and move on.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2012-12-05 14:33:14 Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-12-05 13:34:05 Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2012-12-05 14:33:14 Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-12-05 13:53:08 Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility