| 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: | 2026-05-18 10:11:56 |
| Message-ID: | 7ca4d452-bad1-4a39-ab67-e2f992ba704e@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/18/26 06:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Additionally, I noticed that if several processes are waiting
>> on the same injection point, only one of them will be awakened by a single
>> injection_points_wakeup() call. I am not sure if this behavior is
>> intentional; please let me know.
>
> Yep, I recall that as being intentional, hence I don't feel that 0002
> is a good thing to do, even worse doing so in the back-branches.
Ok, I fixed the test to use distinct injection points for the lock group
leader and follower.
--
Best regards,
Vlad
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| vVL3-0001-add-prockill-lockgroup-regression-test.patch | text/x-patch | 18.9 KB |
| vVL3-0002-fix-lockgroup-double-push-and-leak.patch | text/x-patch | 8.1 KB |
| vVL3-0003-fix-prockill-lockgroup-procLatch-recycle-race.patch | text/x-patch | 4.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2026-05-18 10:23:20 | Re: Support LIKE with nondeterministic collations |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2026-05-18 09:16:19 | Re: Fix SPLIT PARTITION bound-overlap bug and other improvements |