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)".


> 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      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to