On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > 6. > + * XXX - Is there a potential timing problem here - e.g. if signal arrives > + * while executing this then maybe we will set table_states_valid without > + * refetching them? > + */ > +static void > +FetchTableStates(bool *started_tx) > .. > > Can you explain which race condition you are worried about here which > is not possible earlier but can happen after this patch? >
Yes, my question (in that XXX comment) was not about anything new for the current patch, because this FetchTableStates function has exactly the same logic as the HEAD code. I was only wondering if there is any possibility that one of the function calls (inside the if block) can end up calling CHECK_INTERRUPTS. If that could happen, then perhaps the table_states_valid flag could be assigned false (by the invalidate_syncing_table_states signal handler) only to be immediately/wrongly overwritten as table_states_valid = true in this FetchTableStates code. ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
