On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I had my eyes on the WAL sender code this morning, and I have noticed
>>> that walsender.c is not completely consistent with the PID lookups it
>>> does in walsender.c. In two code paths, the PID value is checked
>>> without holding the WAL sender spin lock (WalSndRqstFileReload and
>>> pg_stat_get_wal_senders), which looks like a very bad idea contrary to
>>> what the new WalSndWaitStopping() does and what InitWalSenderSlot() is
>>> doing for ages.
>> There is also code that accesses shared walsender state without
>> spinlocks over in syncrep.c.  I think that file could use a few words
>> of explanation for why it's OK to access pid, state and flush without
>> synchronisation.
> Yes, that is read during the quorum and priority sync evaluation.
> Except sync_standby_priority, all the other variables should be
> protected using the spin lock of the WAL sender. walsender_private.h
> is clear regarding that. So the current coding is inconsistent even
> there. Attached is an updated patch.

Also, as Horiguchi-san pointed out earlier, walreceiver seems need the
similar fix.


Masahiko Sawada
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to