Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 16:50:23 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich@gmx.de>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [sqlsmith] stuck spinlock in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver
 after OOM
Message-ID: <20171003145023.nc2ffduj3qvy4b5b@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <10840.1507041102@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:

> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't especially like the Asserts inside spinlocks, either.
> 
> > I didn't change these.  It doesn't look to me that these asserts are
> > worth very much as production code.
> 
> OK.  If we ever see these hit in the buildfarm I might argue for
> reconsidering, but without some evidence of that sort it's not
> worth much concern.

Sure.  I would be very surprised if buildfarm ever exercises this code.

> > I think the latch is only used locally.  Seems that it was only put in
> > shmem to avoid a separate variable ...
> 
> Hm, I'm strongly tempted to move it to a separate static variable then.
> That's not a bug fix, so maybe it only belongs in HEAD, but is there
> value in keeping the branches in sync in this code?  It sounded from
> your commit message like they were pretty different already :-(

Well, there were conflicts in almost every branch, but they were pretty
minor.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


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