| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] stuck spinlock in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver after OOM |
| Date: | 2017-10-02 21:30:25 |
| Message-ID: | 459.1506979825@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-10-02 21:32:15 | Re: [sqlsmith] stuck spinlock in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver after OOM |
| Previous Message | Maksim Milyutin | 2017-10-02 21:20:19 | Re: [BUG] Cache invalidation for queries that contains const of temporary composite type |