From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | const_sunny(at)126(dot)com |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14721: Assertion of synchronous replication |
Date: | 2017-06-29 05:11:47 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=33AAJFu9CMPhCsnX-Zg6ZySrga_oAjRV0Dtgx2G03kpQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> /*
> * Acquiring the lock is not needed, the latch ensures proper
> * barriers. If it looks like we're done, we must really be done,
> * because once walsender changes the state to SYNC_REP_WAIT_COMPLETE,
> * it will never update it again, so we can't be seeing a stale value
> * in that case.
> */
Yeah, counting on the latch for free barriers doesn't work if you
happen to see SYNC_REP_WAIT_COMPLETE first time through the loop, or
if you see it after a spurious signal woke you and then it's
immediately set to SYNC_REP_WAIT_COMPLETE. In those cases, the
following Assert statement is making an assertion about cache
coherency that doesn't work even on a friendly TSO system.
Can you reproduce the problem with this experimental patch applied?
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
barriers.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michal Novotny | 2017-06-29 09:01:17 | Segmentation fault in libpq |
Previous Message | const_sunny@126.com | 2017-06-29 04:30:09 | Assertion of synchronous replication |