Fix race condition with unprotected use of a latch pointer variable.

Commit 597a87ccc introduced a latch pointer variable to replace use
of a long-lived shared latch in the shared WalRcvData structure.
This was not well thought out, because there are now hazards of the
pointer variable changing while it's being inspected by another
process.  This could obviously lead to a core dump in code like

	if (WalRcv->latch)
		SetLatch(WalRcv->latch);

and there's a more remote risk of a torn read, if we have any
platforms where reading/writing a pointer is not atomic.

An actual problem would occur only if the walreceiver process
exits (gracefully) while the startup process is trying to
signal it, but that seems well within the realm of possibility.

To fix, treat the pointer variable (not the referenced latch)
as being protected by the WalRcv->mutex spinlock.  There
remains a race condition that we could apply SetLatch to a
process latch that no longer belongs to the walreceiver, but
I believe that's harmless: at worst it'd cause an extra wakeup
of the next process to use that PGPROC structure.

Back-patch to v10 where the faulty code was added.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22735.1507048202@sss.pgh.pa.us

src/backend/replication/walreceiverfuncs.c

@@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ RequestXLogStreaming(TimeLineID tli, XLogRecPtr recptr, const char *conninfo,
 	WalRcvData *walrcv = WalRcv;
 	bool		launch = false;
 	pg_time_t	now = (pg_time_t) time(NULL);
+	Latch	   *latch;
 
 	/*
 	 * We always start at the beginning of the segment. That prevents a broken
@@ -274,12 +275,14 @@ RequestXLogStreaming(TimeLineID tli, XLogRecPtr recptr, const char *conninfo,
 	walrcv->receiveStart = recptr;
 	walrcv->receiveStartTLI = tli;
 
+	latch = walrcv->latch;
+
 	SpinLockRelease(&walrcv->mutex);
 
 	if (launch)
 		SendPostmasterSignal(PMSIGNAL_START_WALRECEIVER);
-	else if (walrcv->latch)
-		SetLatch(walrcv->latch);
+	else if (latch)
+		SetLatch(latch);
 }
 
 /*