| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock |
| Date: | 2022-08-17 19:30:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20220817193032.z35vdjhpzkgldrd3@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-08-17 15:21:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 2:45 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Given that the cleanup locks in question are "taken" *after* re-initializing
> > the page, I'm doubtful that's a sane path forward. It seems quite likely to
> > mislead somebody to rely on it working as a cleanup lock in the future.
>
> There's not a horde of people lining up to work on the hash index
> code, but if you feel like writing and testing the more invasive fix,
> I'm not really going to fight you over it.
My problem is that the code right now is an outright lie. At the absolute very
least this code needs a big honking "we check if we have a cleanup lock here,
but that's just for show, because WE ALREADY OVERWROTE THE WHOLE PAGE".
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2022-08-17 19:46:42 | Re: shared-memory based stats collector - v70 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-08-17 19:28:18 | Re: static libpq (and other libraries) overwritten on aix |