From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <tmunro(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay |
Date: | 2024-01-23 20:07:04 |
Message-ID: | 20240123200704.icmkv2vromua2dtj@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2024-01-18 14:00:58 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > The LockBufHdr also used init_local_spin_delay / perform_spin_delay
> > infrastruce and then it has the same issue like ${subject}, it is pretty
> > like the code in s_lock; Based on my current knowledge, I think we
> > should add the check there.
>
> I'd like to hear from Andres, if possible. @Andres: Should these
> sanity checks apply only to spin locks per se, or also to buffer
> header locks?
They also should apply to buffer header locks. The exact same dangers apply
there. The only reason this isn't using a plain spinlock is that this way we
can modify more state with a single atomic operation. But all the dangers of
using spinlocks apply just as well.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tristan Partin | 2024-01-23 20:10:48 | Re: Remove pthread_is_threaded_np() checks in postmaster |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-01-23 19:50:09 | Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code |