"Bossart, Nathan" <bossa...@amazon.com> writes:
> On 10/28/21, 11:53 PM, "Michael Paquier" <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> Actually, as the list of recovery locks is saved in TopMemoryContext,
>> wouldn't it be better to keep a per-cell deletion of the list, which
>> would mean that we'd better do the operation in the reverse order to
>> make things faster with the new list implementation? But that's what
>> Andres points at with CFIs in the middle of one list of the hash table
>> processed?
> Hm. IIUC anything bad enough to cause the startup process to break
> out of the StandbyReleaseLockList() loop will also cause the entire
> process to be restarted. I'm not seeing any risk of reusing a half-
> released lock list. I might be misunderstanding the concern, though.
Yeah, there's no expectation that this data structure needs to be kept
consistent after an error; and I'm not real sure that the existing
code could claim to satisfy such a requirement if we did need it.
(There's at least a short window where the caller's hash table entry
will point at an already-freed List.)
Pushed the patch as given. I've not yet reviewed other list_delete_first
callers, but I'll take a look. (I seem to remember that I did survey
them while writing 1cff1b95a, but I evidently missed that this code
could be dealing with a list long enough to be problematic.)
regards, tom lane
