Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Problem on AIX with current

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Problem on AIX with current
Date: 2001-10-01 16:22:33
Message-ID: 23945.1001953353@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Can you read the man page for cs(3), AIX 4 sais it is not recommended
>> suggests to use compare_and_swap, maybe AIX 5 has more to say ?

>     Note&#58; The cs subroutine is only provided to support binary
>     compatibility with AIX Version 3 applications&#46; When writing new
>     applications, it is not recommended to use this subroutine; it may cause
>     reduced performance in the future&#46; Applications should use the
>     compare_and_swap (compare_and_swap Subroutine) subroutine, unless they
>     need to use unaligned memory locations&#46;

> Seems same as AIX 4?

Hmm, does anyone want to produce new s_lock code for AIX that uses
compare_and_swap?  But I'm not sure that's the problem here.

> Here is a stack trace using dbx.

> semop(??, ??, ??) at 0xd02be73c
> IpcSemaphoreLock(??, ??, ??), line 425 in "ipc.c"
> LWLockAcquire(??, ??), line 270 in "lwlock.c"
> LockAcquire(??, ??, ??, ??, ??), line 482 in "lock.c"

This process is waiting to acquire the LockMgr lock.  You need to look
at the rest of the processes and try to figure out who's got the lock.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2001-10-01 16:25:30
Subject: patch contrib/intarray to current CVS
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-10-01 16:19:06
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group