Re: ERROR: invalid spinlock number: 0

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ERROR: invalid spinlock number: 0
Date: 2021-02-15 09:47:05
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+tZHpADD_BsPp=c3EiYeenTTx5AxsZVGkv1mA0J3O21w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 9:27 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:30:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Yes, so what about the attached patch?
>
> I see. So the first error triggering the spinlock error would cause
> a transaction failure because the fallback implementation of atomics
> uses a spinlock for this variable, and it may not initialized in this
> code path.

Why not initialise it in WalRcvShmemInit()?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2021-02-15 10:40:04 Re: increase size of pg_commit_ts buffers
Previous Message Zohar Gofer 2021-02-15 09:37:53 pg_replication_origin_session_setup and superuser