| From: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <tmunro(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay |
| Date: | 2024-01-22 17:10:17 |
| Message-ID: | 878r4hwatd.fsf@163.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:58 AM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> wrote:
>> I get your point! Acquiring an already held spinlock in quickdie is
>> unlikely to happen, but since our existing infrastructure can handle it,
>> then there is no reason to bypass it.
>
> No, the existing infrastructure cannot handle that at all.
Actually I mean we can handle it without 0003. am I still wrong?
Without the 0003, if we acquiring the spin lock which is held by
ourself already. VerifyNoSpinLocksHeld in SpinLockAcquire should catch
it.
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chantal Keller | 2024-01-22 17:11:23 | Re: Improving EXPLAIN's display of SubPlan nodes |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2024-01-22 17:07:27 | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |