| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] stuck spinlock in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver after OOM |
| Date: | 2017-10-02 21:32:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20171002213215.4e3iwt7oh5wdjqm2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-10-02 17:30:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Yes, that'd be a bad idea. It's not great to have memcpys in a critical
> > section, but it's way better than pallocs. So we need to use some local
> > buffers that this get copied to.
>
> Or replace the spinlock with an LWLock?
That'd probably be a good idea, but I'm loathe to do so in the back
branches. Not at this callsite, but some others, there's some potential
for contention.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-02 21:32:30 | Re: 64-bit queryId? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-02 21:30:25 | Re: [sqlsmith] stuck spinlock in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver after OOM |