RE: Quite strange crash

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: Quite strange crash
Date: 2001-01-09 21:39:40
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3253@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Yup. I had just come to the realization that we'd be best
> off to treat the *entire* period from SpinAcquire to SpinRelease
> as a critical section for the purposes of die(). That is, response
> to SIGTERM will be held off until we have released the spinlock.
> Most of the places where we grab spinlocks would have to make such
> a critical section anyway, at least for large parts of the time that
> they are holding the spinlock, because they are manipulating shared
> data structures and the instantaneous intermediate states aren't always
> self-consistent. So we might as well follow the KISS principle and
> just do START_CRIT_SECTION in SpinAcquire and END_CRIT_SECTION in
> SpinRelease.
>
> Vadim, any objection?

No one for the moment. If we'll just add XXX_CRIT_SECTION
to SpinXXX funcs without changing anything else then it will be easy
to remove them later (in the event we'll find any problems with this),
so - do it.

Vadim

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael J Schout 2001-01-09 22:25:02 Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-01-09 21:28:30 Re: Quite strange crash