| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: Quite strange crash |
| Date: | 2001-01-09 18:50:40 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3249@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > START_/END_CRIT_SECTION is mostly CritSectionCount++/--.
> > Recording could be made as
> > LockedSpinLocks[LockedSpinCounter++] = &spinlock
> > in pre-allocated array.
>
> Yeah, I suppose. We already do record locking of all the fixed
> spinlocks (BufMgrLock etc), it's just the per-buffer spinlocks that
> are missing from that (and CRIT_SECTION calls). Would it be
> reasonable to assume that only one buffer spinlock could be held
> at a time?
No. UPDATE holds two spins, btree split even more.
But stop - afair bufmgr remembers locked buffers, probably
we could just add XXX_CRIT_SECTION to LockBuffer..?
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin A. Marques | 2001-01-09 19:05:33 | How to print explain using PHP |
| Previous Message | Denis Perchine | 2001-01-09 18:46:50 | Re: Quite strange crash |