| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Masahiko Sawada' <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Assertion failure in SnapBuildInitialSnapshot() |
| Date: | 2023-01-27 11:01:19 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB58667EC946ADCDC04DD9D186F5CC9@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Sawada-san,
Thank you for making the patch! I'm still considering whether this approach is
correct, but I can put a comment to your patch anyway.
```
- Assert(!already_locked || LWLockHeldByMe(ProcArrayLock));
-
- if (!already_locked)
- LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+ Assert(LWLockHeldByMe(ProcArrayLock));
```
In this function, we regard that the ProcArrayLock has been already acquired as
exclusive mode and modify data. I think LWLockHeldByMeInMode() should be used
instead of LWLockHeldByMe().
I confirmed that there is only one caller that uses ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(true)
and it acquires exclusive lock correctly, but it can avoid future bug.
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-01-27 11:04:39 | Re: Syncrep and improving latency due to WAL throttling |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-01-27 11:00:07 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |