On 2021/02/17 13:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:47:52PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On 2021/02/16 15:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> + /*
>>> + * Read "writtenUpto" without holding a spinlock. So it may not be
>>> + * consistent with other WAL receiver's shared variables protected by a
>>> + * spinlock. This is OK because that variable is used only for
>>> + * informational purpose and should not be used for data integrity checks.
>>> + */
>>> What about the following?
>>> "Read "writtenUpto" without holding a spinlock. Note that it may not
>>> be consistent with the other shared variables of the WAL receiver
>>> protected by a spinlock, but this should not be used for data
>>> integrity checks."
>>
>> Sounds good. Attached is the updated version of the patch.
>
> Thanks, looks good to me.
Pushed. Thanks!
>
>>> I agree that what has been done with MyProc->waitStart in 46d6e5f is
>>> not safe, and that initialization should happen once at postmaster
>>> startup, with a write(0) when starting the backend. There are two of
>>> them in proc.c, one in twophase.c. Do you mind if I add an open item
>>> for this one?
>>
>> Yeah, please feel free to do that! BTW, I already posted the patch
>> addressing that issue, at [1].
>
> Okay, item added with a link to the original thread.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION