On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 7:50 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:09 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I think it is only possible for the leader apply can worker to try to > > receive the error message from an error queue after your 0002 patch. > > Because another place already detached from the queue before stopping > > the parallel apply workers. So, I combined both the patches and > > changed a few comments and a commit message. Let me know what you > > think of the attached. > > I have one comment on the detaching error queue part: > > + /* > + * Detach from the error_mq_handle for the parallel apply worker > before > + * stopping it. This prevents the leader apply worker from trying to > + * receive the message from the error queue that might already > be detached > + * by the parallel apply worker. > + */ > + shm_mq_detach(winfo->error_mq_handle); > + winfo->error_mq_handle = NULL; > > In pa_detach_all_error_mq(), we try to detach error queues of all > workers in the pool. I think we should check if the queue is already > detached (i.e. is NULL) there. Otherwise, we will end up a SEGV if an > error happens after detaching the error queue and before removing the > worker from the pool. >
Agreed, I have made this change, added the same check at one other place for the sake of consistency, and pushed the patch. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.