Re: pgsql: Get rid of the dedicated latch for signaling the startup process

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Get rid of the dedicated latch for signaling the startup process
Date: 2020-11-04 20:36:14
Message-ID: 3d3c42ca-c1bd-605d-71cf-8cd6353e895b@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

On 04/11/2020 15:17, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/11/2020 14:03, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Or ISTM that WakeupRecovery() should set the latch only when the latch
>> has not been reset to NULL yet.
>
> Got to be careful with race conditions, if the latch is set to NULL at
> the same time that WakeupRecovery() is called.

I don't think commit 113d3591b8 got this quite right:

> void
> WakeupRecovery(void)
> {
> if (XLogCtl->recoveryWakeupLatch)
> SetLatch(XLogCtl->recoveryWakeupLatch);
> }

If XLogCtl->recoveryWakeupLatch is set to NULL between the if and the
SetLatch, you'll still get a segfault. That's highly unlikely to happen
in practice because the compiler will optimize that into a single load
instruction, but could happen with -O0. I think you'd need to do the
access only once, using a volatile pointer, to make that safe. Maybe
it's simpler to just not reset it to NULL, after all.

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2020-11-04 21:02:05 Re: pgsql: Get rid of the dedicated latch for signaling the startup process
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-11-04 20:08:48 pgsql: Declare lead() and lag() using anycompatible not anyelement.