| From: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2024-01-25 07:36:41 |
| Message-ID: | 87il3hvp5n.fsf@163.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2024-01-18 14:00:58 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > The LockBufHdr also used init_local_spin_delay / perform_spin_delay
>> > infrastruce and then it has the same issue like ${subject}, it is pretty
>> > like the code in s_lock; Based on my current knowledge, I think we
>> > should add the check there.
>>
>> I'd like to hear from Andres, if possible. @Andres: Should these
>> sanity checks apply only to spin locks per se, or also to buffer
>> header locks?
>
> They also should apply to buffer header locks. The exact same dangers apply
> there. The only reason this isn't using a plain spinlock is that this way we
> can modify more state with a single atomic operation. But all the dangers of
> using spinlocks apply just as well.
Thanks for speaking on this!
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2024-01-25 07:47:04 | Re: A compiling warning in jsonb_populate_record_valid |
| Previous Message | Andy Fan | 2024-01-25 07:24:17 | Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay |