Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-10-02 22:56:49 +0200, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: >> low-memory testing with REL_10_STABLE at 1f19550a87 produced the >> following PANIC: >> stuck spinlock detected at pg_stat_get_wal_receiver, walreceiver.c:1397
> Ugh. Egad. > 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? In any case, I think it would be a good idea to look at every other critical section touching that lock to see if there are any other blatant coding-rule violations. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers