On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:20 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2023-Aug-24, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > > wrote: > > > > Hmm, I think if worker->in_use is false, we shouldn't consult the rest > > > of the struct at all, so I propose to add the attached 0001 as a minimal > > > fix. > > > > I think that way we may need to add the check for in_use before > > accessing each of the LogicalRepWorker struct fields or form some rule > > about which fields (or places) are okay to access without checking > > in_use field. > > As far as I realize, we have that rule already. It's only a few > relatively new places that have broken it. I understand that the in_use > concept comes from the one of the same name in ReplicationSlot, except > that it is not at all documented in worker_internal.h. > > So I propose we do both: apply Zhijie's patch and my 0001 now; and > somebody gets to document the locking design for LogicalRepWorker. >
Agreed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
