From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Race conditions with WAL sender PID lookups |
Date: | 2017-05-18 04:43:04 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=17Mwu-9P9debzsAqfi1RZqwT4TmbYpWK+bOGFPLw989A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I had my eyes on the WAL sender code this morning, and I have noticed
> that walsender.c is not completely consistent with the PID lookups it
> does in walsender.c. In two code paths, the PID value is checked
> without holding the WAL sender spin lock (WalSndRqstFileReload and
> pg_stat_get_wal_senders), which looks like a very bad idea contrary to
> what the new WalSndWaitStopping() does and what InitWalSenderSlot() is
> doing for ages.
There is also code that accesses shared walsender state without
spinlocks over in syncrep.c. I think that file could use a few words
of explanation for why it's OK to access pid, state and flush without
synchronisation.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-05-18 05:40:25 | Re: [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternative hosts when some errors occur |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-05-18 03:58:22 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |