On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 8:15 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Pushed both the patches. >
IMO there are inconsistencies in the second patch that was pushed. 1. In the am_xxx functions, why is there Assert 'in_use' only for the APPLY / PARALLEL_APPLY workers but not for TABLESYNC workers? 2. In the am_xxx functions there is now Assert 'in_use', so why are we still using macros to check again what we already asserted is not possible? (Or, if the checking overkill was a deliberate choice then why is there no isLeaderApplyWorker macro?) ~ PSA a small patch to address these. ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
v1-0001-Fix-am_xxx-function-Asserts.patch
Description: Binary data