Re: Race conditions with WAL sender PID lookups

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Race conditions with WAL sender PID lookups
Date: 2017-05-18 02:25:55
Message-ID: CAB7nPqT9AcRNewGwNGCdL5WBF2oc9sNjqrQcVM8q=4dZPYmjMw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, it's probably worth changing for consistency, but I'm not sure
> that it rises to the level of "a very bad idea". It actually seems
> almost entirely harmless. Spuriously setting the needreload flag on a
> just-deceased WAL sender will just result in some future WAL sender
> doing a bit of unnecessary work, but I don't think it breaks anything
> and the probability is vanishingly low. The other change could result
> a bogus 0 PID in pg_stat_get_wal_senders output, but I bet you
> couldn't reproduce that more than once in a blue moon even with a test
> rig designed to provoke it, and if it does happen it isn't really
> anything more than a trivial annoyance.

Well, the window is very low, so only tests with precisely taken
breakpoints would show problems.

> So I'm in favor of committing this and maybe even back-patching it,
> but I also don't think it's a big deal.

Thanks. I would not mind if this is seen as a HEAD-only improvement.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-05-18 02:29:06 Re: Improvement in log message of logical replication worker
Previous Message Amit Langote 2017-05-18 02:04:00 Re: fix hard-coded index in make_partition_op_expr