Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pNPRA-0004DJ-6f for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 02:34:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pNPR7-00024u-Rg for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 02:34:53 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pNPR7-00024P-Ii for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 02:34:53 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pNPR4-0007Ke-Fn for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 02:34:52 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 3122YikN1449634; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 21:34:44 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Nathan Bossart , Andres Freund , Thomas Munro , Fujii Masao , Postgres hackers Subject: Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15 In-reply-to: References: <20230201021206.wobi3dsnnuany3yq@alap3.anarazel.de> <20230201105514.rsjl4bnhb65giyvo@alap3.anarazel.de> <1369666.1675264346@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20230201165801.33ydbxvjdbomjqa7@alap3.anarazel.de> <20230201175806.GA3199959@nathanxps13> <20230201223555.GA3721373@nathanxps13> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Thu, 02 Feb 2023 11:06:19 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1449632.1675305284.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 21:34:44 -0500 Message-ID: <1449633.1675305284@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier writes: > Hmm. Isn't that something that we should also document in startup.c > where both routines are defined? If we begin to use > PreRestoreCommand() and PostRestoreCommand() in more code paths in the > future, that could be again an issue. I was vaguely wondering about removing both of those functions in favor of an integrated function that does a system() call with those things before and after it. regards, tom lane