From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Race condition in SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority |
Date: | 2020-04-18 16:00:19 |
Message-ID: | 22664.1587225619@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 00:31, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> + /* Quick out if not even configured to be synchronous */
>> + if (SyncRepConfig == NULL)
>> + return false;
> I felt strange a bit that we do the above check in
> SyncRepGetSyncRecPtr() because SyncRepReleaseWaiters() which is the
> only caller says the following before calling it:
Notice there was such a test in SyncRepGetSyncRecPtr already --- I just
moved it to be before doing some work instead of after.
> Can we either change it to an assertion, move it to before acquiring
> SyncRepLock in SyncRepReleaseWaiters or just remove it?
I have no objection to that in principle, but it seems like it's a
change in SyncRepGetSyncRecPtr's API that is not necessary to fix
this bug. So I'd rather leave it to happen along with the larger
API changes (getting rid of am_sync) that are proposed for v14.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-04-18 16:33:08 | Re: relocating the server's backup manifest code |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-18 15:42:56 | Re: relocating the server's backup manifest code |