| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(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: | 2024-01-10 16:13:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZeNF8AaiQncuacdo3kAMz-pdSrVe1Ev-CcW=Ld7fYM0Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for jumping in with a review, Matthias!
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:03 AM Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm not 100% sure on the policy of this, but theoretically you could
> use LockAquireExtended(dontWait=true) while holding a spin lock, as
> that would not have an unknown duration. Then again, this function
> also does elog/ereport, which would cause issues, still, so this code
> may be the better option.
This is definitely not allowable, and anybody who is thinking about
doing it should replace the spinlock with an LWLock.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-10 16:17:22 | Re: Relation bulk write facility |
| Previous Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2024-01-10 15:59:02 | Re: Custom explain options |