|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Michael Paquier
> 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.
OK, I think that I have spotted an issue after additional read of the
code. When a WSA event is used for read/write activity on a socket,
the same WSA event gets reused again and again. That's fine for
performance reasons, but what I think is not fine is the fact that
this WSA event is *not* reset even once in-between when calling
WaitEventAdjustWin32() to adjust an event HANDLE to wait for, and the
FeBeWaitEvent is used a lot. That's one inconsistency with the old
code that always closed the WSA event after using it, unconditionally.
Now that we cache it I think that we had better put it in a clean
state every time we want to use it again.
With the pointer miscalculation I pointed out upthread it gives the
Ashutosh, could you try it and see if it improves things?
|Next Message||Rafa de la Torre||2016-12-12 09:10:21||Re: Fix for segfault in plpython's exception handling|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2016-12-12 07:44:26||Re: jacana hung after failing to acquire random number|