Re: ERROR: invalid spinlock number: 0

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