| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: potential stuck lock in SaveSlotToPath() |
| Date: | 2020-03-27 07:48:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20200327074845.GD1486@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:16:05PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> committed and backpatched
The patch committed does that in three places:
/* rename to permanent file, fsync file and directory */
if (rename(tmppath, path) != 0)
{
+ LWLockRelease(&slot->io_in_progress_lock);
ereport(elevel,
(errcode_for_file_access(),
errmsg("could not rename file \"%s\" to \"%s\": %m",
But why do you assume that LWLockRelease() never changes errno? It
seems to me that you should save errno before calling LWLockRelease(),
and then restore it back before using %m in the log message, no? See
for example the case where trace_lwlocks is set.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-03-27 07:58:52 | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-27 07:39:55 | Re: pg_checksums in backend/storage/page/README |