| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Quite strange crash |
| Date: | 2001-01-09 18:28:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1879.979064894@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> START_/END_CRIT_SECTION is mostly CritSectionCount++/--.
> Recording could be made as LockedSpinLocks[LockedSpinCounter++] = &spinlock
> in pre-allocated array.
Yeah, I suppose. We already do record locking of all the fixed
spinlocks (BufMgrLock etc), it's just the per-buffer spinlocks that
are missing from that (and CRIT_SECTION calls). Would it be reasonable
to assume that only one buffer spinlock could be held at a time?
> (BTW, it's bad that pg_ctl doesn't wait on shutdown by default).
I agree. Anyone object to changing pg_ctl to do -w by default?
What should we call the switch to tell it to not wait? -n?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-09 18:29:10 | Re: Quite strange crash |
| Previous Message | Denis Perchine | 2001-01-09 18:27:08 | Re: Quite strange crash |