Re: [sqlsmith] stuck spinlock in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver after OOM

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [sqlsmith] stuck spinlock in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver after OOM
Date: 2017-10-02 21:32:15
Message-ID: 20171002213215.4e3iwt7oh5wdjqm2@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-10-02 17:30:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Yes, that'd be a bad idea. It's not great to have memcpys in a critical
> > section, but it's way better than pallocs. So we need to use some local
> > buffers that this get copied to.
>
> Or replace the spinlock with an LWLock?

That'd probably be a good idea, but I'm loathe to do so in the back
branches. Not at this callsite, but some others, there's some potential
for contention.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-10-02 21:32:30 Re: 64-bit queryId?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-10-02 21:30:25 Re: [sqlsmith] stuck spinlock in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver after OOM