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: <20171002213215.4e3iwt7oh5wdjqm2@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <87h8vhtgj2.fsf@ansel.ydns.eu>
 <20171002210805.x4lxxmarluen6rfg@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <459.1506979825@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20171002213215.4e3iwt7oh5wdjqm2@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:32:15 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <664.1506980082.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 17:34:42 -0400
Message-ID: <665.1506980082@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-10-02 17:30:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Or replace the spinlock with an LWLock?

> That'd probably be a good idea, but I'm loathe to do so in the back
> branches. Not at this callsite, but some others, there's some potential
> for contention.

If this is the only problem then I'd agree we should stick to a spinlock
(I assume the strings in question can't be very long).  I was thinking
more about what to do if we find other violations that are harder to fix.

			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