| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Cousin Marc <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: bug in fast-path locking |
| Date: | 2012-04-09 22:42:06 |
| Message-ID: | 4F8365BE.3080506@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/9/12 12:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I looked at this more. The above analysis is basically correct, but
> the problem goes a bit beyond an error in LockWaitCancel(). We could
> also crap out with an error before getting as far as LockWaitCancel()
> and have the same problem. I think that a correct statement of the
> problem is this: from the time we bump the strong lock count, up until
> the time we're done acquiring the lock (or give up on acquiring it),
> we need to have an error-cleanup hook in place that will unbump the
> strong lock count if we error out. Once we're done updating the
> shared and local lock tables, the special handling ceases to be
> needed, because any subsequent lock release will go through
> LockRelease() or LockReleaseAll(), which will do the appropriate
> clenaup.
>
> The attached patch is an attempt at implementing that; any reviews appreciated.
Dumb question... should operations in the various StrongLock functions take place in a critical section? Or is that already ensure outside of these functions?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-04-09 23:12:12 | Re: bug in fast-path locking |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2012-04-09 22:23:59 | Re: Last gasp |