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

Re: Minor fix in lwlock.c

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Minor fix in lwlock.c
Date: 2005-04-08 03:47:26
Message-ID: 25640.1112932046@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> The chance that num_held_lwlocks is beyond MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS is similar to
> the chance that failed to grasp a spinlock in 1 minute, so they should be
> treated in the same way. This is mainly to prevent programming error (e.g.,
> forget to release the LWLocks).

Hmm ... yeah, it's not too hard to imagine a bug leading to trying to
grab content locks on more than 100 buffers, for example.  Patch
applied, although I reduced the severity from FATAL to ERROR.  I don't
see any reason to think we'd be unable to recover normally from such a
bug --- do you?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Qingqing ZhouDate: 2005-04-08 05:04:25
Subject: Re: Minor fix in lwlock.c
Previous:From: Qingqing ZhouDate: 2005-04-08 02:21:53
Subject: Minor fix in lwlock.c

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