| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Windows buildfarm members vs. new async-notify isolation test |
| Date: | 2019-12-08 16:22:08 |
| Message-ID: | 7634.1575822128@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> IIUC, once the dispatch thread has queued the signal
>> (pg_queue_signal), the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS by the main thread
>> will execute the signal. So, if we move pg_queue_signal() before we
>> do WriteFile in pg_signal_dispatch_thread(), this race condition will
>> be closed. Now, we might not want to do this as that will add some
>> more time (even though very less) before notify on the other side can
>> finish or maybe there is some technical problem with this idea which I
>> am not able to see immediately.
> Hmm. Certainly worth trying to see if it resolves the failure on
> Andrew's machines.
For Andrew's convenience, here's a draft patch for that. I took the
liberty of improving the rather thin comments in this area, too.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| this-might-fix-windows-race-condition.patch | text/x-diff | 2.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-08 16:57:46 | Re: Windows buildfarm members vs. new async-notify isolation test |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-08 14:53:14 | Re: Windows buildfarm members vs. new async-notify isolation test |