Re: race condition when writing pg_control

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: race condition when writing pg_control
Date: 2020-06-08 03:25:31
Message-ID: 6D187DAC-C177-4556-929D-718094FF6143@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6/7/20, 7:50 PM, "Thomas Munro" <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I pushed 0001 and 0002, squashed into one commit. I'm not sure about
> 0003. If we're going to do that, wouldn't it be better to just
> acquire the lock in that one extra place in StartupXLOG(), rather than
> introducing the extra parameter?

Thanks! The approach for 0003 was discussed a bit upthread [0]. I do
not have a strong opinion, but I lean towards just acquiring the lock.

Nathan

[0] https://postgr.es/m/20200527071053.GD103662%40paquier.xyz

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2020-06-08 04:38:33 Bump default wal_level to logical
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2020-06-08 02:48:55 Re: race condition when writing pg_control