From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich@gmx.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [sqlsmith] stuck spinlock in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver after OOM
In-reply-to: <20171002210805.x4lxxmarluen6rfg@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <87h8vhtgj2.fsf@ansel.ydns.eu>
 <20171002210805.x4lxxmarluen6rfg@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:08:05 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <458.1506979825.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 17:30:25 -0400
Message-ID: <459.1506979825@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-10-02 22:56:49 +0200, Andreas Seltenreich wrote:
>> low-memory testing with REL_10_STABLE at 1f19550a87 produced the
>> following PANIC:
>> stuck spinlock detected at pg_stat_get_wal_receiver, walreceiver.c:1397

> Ugh.

Egad.

> Yes, that'd be a bad idea. It's not great to have memcpys in a critical
> section, but it's way better than pallocs. So we need to use some local
> buffers that this get copied to.

Or replace the spinlock with an LWLock?  In any case, I think it would be
a good idea to look at every other critical section touching that lock
to see if there are any other blatant coding-rule violations.

			regards, tom lane


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