Re: `pg_ctl init` crashes when run concurrently; semget(2) suspected

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Burd, Greg" <greg(at)burd(dot)me>, Gavin Panella <gavinpanella(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: `pg_ctl init` crashes when run concurrently; semget(2) suspected
Date: 2025-08-16 03:16:30
Message-ID: 684991.1755314190@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> And just by the way, each backend has its own semaphore, so in actual
> usage we're probably only talking about the "superfluous wakeups"
> mentioned in lwlock.c, clog.c and procarray.c. I suppose it's not
> expected to go very high at all?

I wouldn't expect so.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2025-08-16 03:37:33 Re: [PATCH] Let's get rid of the freelist and the buffer_strategy_lock
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2025-08-16 03:04:47 Re: `pg_ctl init` crashes when run concurrently; semget(2) suspected