Re: Race condition in SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Race condition in SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 22664.1587225619@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Race condition in SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Race condition in SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 00:31, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> + /* Quick out if not even configured to be synchronous */ >> + if (SyncRepConfig == NULL) >> + return false; > I felt strange a bit that we do the above check in > SyncRepGetSyncRecPtr() because SyncRepReleaseWaiters() which is the > only caller says the following before calling it: Notice there was such a test in SyncRepGetSyncRecPtr already --- I just moved it to be before doing some work instead of after. > Can we either change it to an assertion, move it to before acquiring > SyncRepLock in SyncRepReleaseWaiters or just remove it? I have no objection to that in principle, but it seems like it's a change in SyncRepGetSyncRecPtr's API that is not necessary to fix this bug. So I'd rather leave it to happen along with the larger API changes (getting rid of am_sync) that are proposed for v14. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: