On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 07:30:54PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> While an assertion in UpdateControlFile() would not have helped us
> catch the problem I initially reported, it does seem worthwhile to add
> it. I have attached a patch that adds this assertion and also
> attempts to fix XLogReportParameters(). Since there is only one place
> where we feel it is safe to call UpdateControlFile() without a lock, I
> just changed it to take the lock. I don't think this adds any sort of
> significant contention risk, and IMO it is a bit cleaner than the
> boolean flag.
Let's see what Fujii-san and Thomas think about that. I'd rather
avoid taking a lock here because we don't need it and because it makes
things IMO confusing with the beginning of StartupXLOG() where a lot
of the fields are read, even if we go without this extra assertion.
> For the XLogReportParameters() fix, I simply added an exclusive lock
> acquisition for the portion that updates the values in shared memory
> and calls UpdateControlFile(). IIUC the first part of this function
> that accesses several ControlFile values should be safe, as none of
> them can be updated after server start.
They can get updated when replaying a XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE record.
But you are right as all of this happens in the startup process, so
your patch looks right to me here.
--
Michael