Fixed the pstrdup problem by replacing with strlcpy() to stack-allocated variables (rather than palloc + memcpy as proposed in Michael's patch).
About the other problems: Tom Lane wrote: > I took a quick look through walreceiver.c, and there are a couple of > obvious problems of the same ilk in WalReceiverMain, which is doing this: > > walrcv->lastMsgSendTime = walrcv->lastMsgReceiptTime = > walrcv->latestWalEndTime = GetCurrentTimestamp(); > > (ie, a potential kernel call) inside a spinlock. But there seems no > real problem with just collecting the timestamp before we enter that > critical section. Done that way. > I also don't especially like the fact that just above there it reaches > elog(PANIC) with the lock still held, though at least that's a case that > should never happen. Fixed by releasing spinlock just before elog. > Further down, it's doing a pfree() inside the spinlock, apparently > for no other reason than to save one "if (tmp_conninfo)". Fixed. > I don't especially like the Asserts inside spinlocks, either. Personally, > I think if those conditions are worth testing then they're worth testing > for real (in production). Variables that are manipulated by multiple > processes are way more likely to assume unexpected states than local > variables. I didn't change these. It doesn't look to me that these asserts are worth very much as production code. > I'm also rather befuddled by the fact that this code sets and clears > walrcv->latch outside the critical sections. If that field is used > by any other process, surely that's completely unsafe. If it isn't, > why is it being kept in shared memory? I think the latch is only used locally. Seems that it was only put in shmem to avoid a separate variable ... -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers