Re: Hang in pldebugger after git commit : 98a64d0

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Hang in pldebugger after git commit : 98a64d0
Date: 2016-12-09 07:11:26
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQ5TsUUN2GbRdSTCi6=+a-a8djhGdG2CULg5QUR5aDWnw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> This basically means that if the latch is set, we don't wait at all
> and drop the ball. I am wondering: isn't that a problem even if
> WL_LATCH_SET is *not* set? If I read this code correctly, even if
> caller has not set WL_LATCH_SET and the latch is set, then the wait
> will stop.

Nah. I misread the code. set->latch is not NULL only if WL_LATCH_SET is enabled.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-12-09 07:24:38 Re: `array_position...()` causes SIGSEGV
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2016-12-09 07:02:23 Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers