| From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alfred Perlstein" <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: another ? lock freezing |
| Date: | 2000-07-31 00:22:36 |
| Message-ID: | 000401bffa85$6d78f060$2801007e@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alfred Perlstein [mailto:bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net]
>
> * Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> [000729 18:38] wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I found another(??) lock freezing phenomenon.
> > Seems I'm guilty for the bug.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Either the cancel of session-2 or commit of session-1 must
> > wake up session-3. I would change the cancel request stuff
> > so that it can wake up sleeping processes.
> >
> > Comments ?
>
> The simplest and fairest way is to simply wake all the programs looking
> for a lock when that lock is released, it also simplifies the design.
>
Hmm,cancel request while waiting for a lock removes the waiting
lock from waitQueue not release the holding lock.
But you are right. It was my fault that I didn't wake up sleeping
processes in my implementation.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-07-31 00:54:52 | Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-07-30 23:43:31 | Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source |