Re: [PATCH] Fix ProcKill lock-group vs procLatch recycle race

From: Vlad Lesin <vladlesin(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ProcKill lock-group vs procLatch recycle race
Date: 2026-05-28 10:22:30
Message-ID: 600f21bb-d6d1-48a5-85fb-117177b88c97@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/28/26 04:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Using two different points, one for the leader and one for the
> follower is indeed the correct way to do things.
I am not sure about that. It is quite confusing to have several waiters
when only one of them is awakened when calling the "wake up" function.
If this logic is forbidden, it should be documented in the code
comments, or an error should be thrown when attempting to add more than
one waiter to the same injection point.

--
Best regards,
Vlad

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thom Brown 2026-05-28 10:47:04 Re: Fix HAVING-to-WHERE pushdown with mismatched operator families
Previous Message Vlad Lesin 2026-05-28 10:02:25 Re: [PATCH] Fix ProcKill lock-group vs procLatch recycle race