From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: subscription/015_stream sometimes breaks |
Date: | 2023-08-24 10:18:02 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JQEaHra+of4eQFyBFzONLhXNscT0miCVHeqgQp7+00AQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:20 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-Aug-24, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> > > Hmm, I think if worker->in_use is false, we shouldn't consult the rest
> > > of the struct at all, so I propose to add the attached 0001 as a minimal
> > > fix.
> >
> > I think that way we may need to add the check for in_use before
> > accessing each of the LogicalRepWorker struct fields or form some rule
> > about which fields (or places) are okay to access without checking
> > in_use field.
>
> As far as I realize, we have that rule already. It's only a few
> relatively new places that have broken it. I understand that the in_use
> concept comes from the one of the same name in ReplicationSlot, except
> that it is not at all documented in worker_internal.h.
>
> So I propose we do both: apply Zhijie's patch and my 0001 now; and
> somebody gets to document the locking design for LogicalRepWorker.
>
Agreed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2023-08-24 10:31:17 | Re: Report planning memory in EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-08-24 10:05:17 | Re: Adding argument names to aggregate functions |