On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:43:52AM -0500, mlw wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > mlw wrote:
> > One must be very careful not to introduce reverse priority problems -
> > i.e. a
> > lower priority process locking some resource and then not letting go
> > while
> > higher priority processes are blocked from running due to needing that
> > lock.
> I understand that, hmm. I wonder if the lock code could boost the priority of a
> process which owns a lock.
The classic approach to solving priority inversion is to allow for
priority inheritance: that is, the low-priority process stays low
priority, even when it locks a resource, until there is contention for
that resource from a higher priority process: then it inherits the higher
priority of the waiting process.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Larry Rosenman||Date: 2002-01-29 17:12:58|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 7.1.3 on OpenServer 5|
|Previous:||From: Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=||Date: 2002-01-29 15:38:43|
|Subject: Re: inline is not ANSI C|