On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:47:52PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2021/02/16 15:50, Michael Paquier wrote: >> + /* >> + * 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. >> + */ >> What about the following? >> "Read "writtenUpto" without holding a spinlock. Note that it may not >> be consistent with the other shared variables of the WAL receiver >> protected by a spinlock, but this should not be used for data >> integrity checks." > > Sounds good. Attached is the updated version of the patch.
Thanks, looks good to me. >> I agree that what has been done with MyProc->waitStart in 46d6e5f is >> not safe, and that initialization should happen once at postmaster >> startup, with a write(0) when starting the backend. There are two of >> them in proc.c, one in twophase.c. Do you mind if I add an open item >> for this one? > > Yeah, please feel free to do that! BTW, I already posted the patch > addressing that issue, at [1]. Okay, item added with a link to the original thread. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
