| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Outdated comments about proc->sem in lwlock.c |
| Date: | 2021-06-03 02:07:02 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+NaNp1+8709Afn8q2DHiFxxxY0549cBz4ySBpSwdCB6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:11 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In passing I noticed that lwlock.c contains 3 comments about bogus
> wakeups due to sharing proc->sem with the heavyweight lock manager and
> ProcWaitForSignal. Commit 6753333f55e (9.5) switched those things
> from proc->sem to proc->procLatch. ProcArrayGroupClearXid() and
> TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus() also use proc->sem though, and I
> haven't studied how those might overlap with with LWLockWait(), so I'm
> not sure what change to suggest.
Here's a patch to remove the misleading comments.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Remove-more-obsolete-comments-about-semaphores.patch | text/x-patch | 2.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-06-03 02:36:19 | Re: What to call an executor node which lazily caches tuples in a hash table? (GUC) |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2021-06-03 01:53:34 | Re: Fixup some appendStringInfo and appendPQExpBuffer calls |