| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes) |
| Date: | 2025-11-24 21:04:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_Z9BzF=mHeiy+tUJ524_c7q0sBabschMX83Shag2XohpA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 3:58 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-11-19 21:47:49 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 0001: A straight-up bugfix in lwlock.c - albeit for a bug that seems currently
> > effectively harmless.
>
> Does anybody have opinions about whether to backpatch this fix? Given that it
> has no real consequences I'm mildly inclined not to, but maybe there are cases
> where the additional wait list lock cycle matters?
Since it is a mistake, I am mildly in favor of backporting to avoid
confusion for future developers. It's pretty weird that LWLockWakeup()
has to be called again to actually unset LW_FLAG_HAS_WAITERS. But
since it's not really harmful, this is a very mild opinion.
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-11-24 21:15:10 | Re: Add notification on BEGIN ATOMIC SQL functions using temp relations |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2025-11-24 21:02:18 | Re: pgsql: Teach DSM registry to ERROR if attaching to an uninitialized ent |