From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Missing LWLock protection in pgstat_reset_replslot() |
Date: | 2024-03-08 05:12:54 |
Message-ID: | ZeqeVpo_PIgT7oP3@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 11:30:55AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> It slightly improves the chances. pgstat_fetch_replslot is only
> called from pg_stat_get_replication_slot(), I thought it might be
> better to acquire lock before we call pgstat_fetch_replslot and
> release once we are done copying the results for that particular slot.
> But I also understand that it will not prevent someone from dropping
> that slot at a later stage when the rest of the calls of
> pg_stat_get_replication_slot() are still pending.
I doubt that there will be more callers of pgstat_fetch_replslot() in
the near future, but at least we would be a bit safer with these
internals IDs when manipulating the slots, when considered in
isolation of this API call
> So I am okay with the current one.
Okay, noted.
Let's give a couple of days to others, in case there are more
comments. (Patch looked OK here after a second look this afternoon.)
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amul Sul | 2024-03-08 05:13:57 | Re: Add system identifier to backup manifest |
Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-03-08 05:09:21 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |