On April 21, 2015 1:17:32 PM GMT+03:00, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >On 21 April 2015 at 15:19, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> On 2015-04-07 18:41:59 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> > @@ -331,8 +331,8 @@ ReplicationSlotAcquire(const char *name) >> > volatile ReplicationSlot *vslot = s; >> > >> > SpinLockAcquire(&s->mutex); >> > - active = vslot->active; >> > - vslot->active = true; >> > + active = vslot->active_pid != 0; >> > + vslot->active_pid = MyProcPid; >> > SpinLockRelease(&s->mutex); >> > slot = s; >> > break; >> >> Uh. You're overwriting the existing pid here. Not good if the slot is >> currently in use. >> > >Isn't that the point? We're acquiring the slot there, per the comment:
Read the rest of the function. We're checking for conflicts... --- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers