On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:30:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > Yes, so what about the attached patch?
I see. So the first error triggering the spinlock error would cause a transaction failure because the fallback implementation of atomics uses a spinlock for this variable, and it may not initialized in this code path. > We didn't notice this issue long time because no regression test checks > pg_stat_wal_receiver. So I included such test in the patch. Moving that behind ready_to_display is fine by me seeing where the initialization is done. The test case is a good addition. + * 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. It seems to me that the first two sentences of this comment should be combined together. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
