Re: ERROR: invalid spinlock number: 0

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ERROR: invalid spinlock number: 0
Date: 2021-02-15 08:27:21
Message-ID: YCowabyl1dwan+JP@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

> We didn't notice this issue long time because no regression test checks
> pg_stat_wal_receiver. So I included such test in the patch.

Moving that behind ready_to_display is fine by me seeing where the
initialization is done. The test case is a good addition.

+ * Read "writtenUpto" without holding a spinlock. So it may not be
+ * consistent with other WAL receiver's shared variables protected by a
+ * spinlock. This is OK because that variable is used only for
+ * informational purpose and should not be used for data integrity checks.
It seems to me that the first two sentences of this comment should be
combined together.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2021-02-15 08:31:11 Re: [POC] Fast COPY FROM command for the table with foreign partitions
Previous Message Joel Jacobson 2021-02-15 08:21:21 Re: Some regular-expression performance hacking