| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Failed Assert in pgstat_assoc_relation |
| Date: | 2022-11-28 21:33:20 |
| Message-ID: | 759774.1669671200@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Something like the attached. Still needs a bit of polish, e.g. adding the test
> case from above.
> I'm a bit uncomfortable adding a function call below
> * Perform swapping of the relcache entry contents. Within this
> * process the old entry is momentarily invalid, so there *must* be no
> * possibility of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS within this sequence. Do it in
> * all-in-line code for safety.
Ugh. I don't know what pgstat_unlink_relation does, but assuming
that it can never throw an error seems like a pretty bad idea,
especially when you aren't adding that to its API spec (contrast
the comments for MemoryContextSetParent).
Can't that part be done outside the critical section?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-11-28 21:44:33 | Re: CF 2022-11: entries "Ready for Committer" with recent activity |
| Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2022-11-28 21:31:39 | Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication |