RE: Silent deadlock possible in current sources

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: RE: Silent deadlock possible in current sources
Date: 2000-08-30 17:55:36
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018CA8@SECTORBASE1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I'm inclined to think that that is the correct solution and the new
> approach is simply broken. But, not knowing what Vadim had in mind
> while making this change, I'm going to leave it to him to fix this.

Thanks, Tom! I'll take care about this...

> Although this specific lockup mode didn't exist in 7.0.*, it does
> suggest a possible cause of the deadlocks-with-no-deadlock-report
> behavior that a couple of people have reported with 7.0: maybe there
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> is another logic path that allows a deadlock involving two
> buffer locks, or a buffer lock and a normal lock. I'm on the
> warpath now ...

Buffer locks were implemented in 6.5.

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-08-30 17:58:44 Silent deadlock possible in current sources
Previous Message Tim Perdue 2000-08-30 17:37:23 Fragged State in 7.0.2