| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: injection_points: Switch wait/wakeup to use atomics rather than latches |
| Date: | 2026-05-28 12:40:39 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoamSXmT7uMXBw6c3YJgSSz6dYdpMsJf47jwaPH9kVbmyA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:43 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> While looking at the test proposed on the thread about the ProcKill(),
> I have been reminded about the fact that relying on latches and a
> condition variable for the wait and the wakeups has its limits:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aheVjCHmcbXBtiy0%40paquier.xyz
After reading this email, the linked-to email, and the commit message
for the patch, I still don't have a clear understanding of what this
is intended to fix. It seems like it's going to make the
responsiveness worse. In general, we want to replace escalating wait
loops with things that wake up instantly at the right time, and this
is going in the opposite direction.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | r314tive | 2026-05-28 12:44:32 | Re: ci: Skip minfree file in the cores_backtrace.sh |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2026-05-28 12:37:54 | Re: [PATCH] Fix overflow and underflow in regr_r2() |