RE: [HACKERS] Frustration

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Michael Simms" <grim(at)argh(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Frustration
Date: 1999-09-28 00:42:31
Message-ID: 000101bf094a$58ecb140$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 10:20 PM
> To: Hiroshi Inoue
> Cc: Michael Simms; pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Frustration
>
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Different from other spinlocks,io_in_progress spinlock is a per bufpage
> > spinlock and ProcReleaseSpins() doesn't release the spinlock.
> > If an error(in md.c in most cases) occured while holding the spinlock
> > ,the spinlock would necessarily freeze.
>
> Oooh, good point. Shouldn't this be fixed? If we don't fix it, then

Yes,it's on TODO.
* spinlock stuck problem when elog(FATAL) and elog(ERROR) inside bufmgr

I would try to fix it.

> a disk I/O error will translate to an installation-wide shutdown and
> restart as soon as some backend tries to touch the locked page (as
> indeed was happening to Michael). That seems a tad extreme.
>

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 1999-09-28 01:21:15 Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-09-28 00:06:32 Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1