Re: Condition variable live lock

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Condition variable live lock
Date: 2018-01-05 10:14:25
Message-ID: CAEepm=2xt_M0PquwBKC6SPm0gpmCUajGsiQ7PLTBAbSuo4O34g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Indeed, it looks like no other caller is paying attention to the result.
> We could live with the uncertainty in the back branches, and redefine
> ConditionVariableSignal as returning void in master.

+1

Could we install the sentinel and pop the first entry at the same
time, so that we're not adding an extra spinlock acquire/release?

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tels 2018-01-05 11:51:49 Re: [Patch] Make block and file size for WAL and relations defined at cluster creation
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2018-01-05 08:36:37 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort