| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ERROR: invalid spinlock number: 0 |
| Date: | 2021-02-15 21:28:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20210215212805.dfahbpqqpnl6lgwm@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-02-15 19:45:21 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 10:47:05PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Why not initialise it in WalRcvShmemInit()?
>
> I was thinking about doing that as well, but we have no real need to
> initialize this stuff in most cases, say standalone deployments. In
> particular for the fallback implementation of atomics, we would
> prepare a spinlock for nothing.
So what? It's just about free to initialize a spinlock, whether it's
using the fallback implementation or not. Initializing upon walsender
startup adds a lot of complications, because e.g. somebody could already
hold the spinlock because the previous walsender just disconnected, and
they were looking at the stats.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-02-15 21:37:06 | Re: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned index |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2021-02-15 21:15:05 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |