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 06:39:15 |
Message-ID: | 9818.1112942355@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes
>> Maybe we *should* make it a PANIC. Thoughts?
> Reasonable. Since this should *never* happen. Once happened, that's means we
> have a serious bug in our design/coding.
Plan C would be something like
if (num_held_lwlocks >= MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS)
{
release the acquired lock;
elog(ERROR, "too many LWLocks taken");
}
But we couldn't just call LWLockRelease, since it expects the lock to
be recorded in held_lwlocks[]. We'd have to duplicate a lot of code,
or split LWLockRelease into multiple routines, neither of which seem
attractive answers considering that this must be a can't-happen
case anyway.
PANIC it will be, unless someone thinks of a reason why not by
tomorrow...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-04-08 07:58:52 | Re: Minor fix in lwlock.c |
Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-04-08 06:02:50 | Re: Minor fix in lwlock.c |