Re: Problem on AIX with current

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Problem on AIX with current
Date: 2001-10-01 16:22:33
Message-ID: 23945.1001953353@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Can you read the man page for cs(3), AIX 4 sais it is not recommended
>> suggests to use compare_and_swap, maybe AIX 5 has more to say ?

> Note&#58; The cs subroutine is only provided to support binary
> compatibility with AIX Version 3 applications&#46; When writing new
> applications, it is not recommended to use this subroutine; it may cause
> reduced performance in the future&#46; Applications should use the
> compare_and_swap (compare_and_swap Subroutine) subroutine, unless they
> need to use unaligned memory locations&#46;

> Seems same as AIX 4?

Hmm, does anyone want to produce new s_lock code for AIX that uses
compare_and_swap? But I'm not sure that's the problem here.

> Here is a stack trace using dbx.

> semop(??, ??, ??) at 0xd02be73c
> IpcSemaphoreLock(??, ??, ??), line 425 in "ipc.c"
> LWLockAcquire(??, ??), line 270 in "lwlock.c"
> LockAcquire(??, ??, ??, ??, ??), line 482 in "lock.c"

This process is waiting to acquire the LockMgr lock. You need to look
at the rest of the processes and try to figure out who's got the lock.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Bartunov 2001-10-01 16:25:30 patch contrib/intarray to current CVS
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-10-01 16:19:06 Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal