| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock |
| Date: | 2022-10-14 01:24:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=vTn6=MbyAx2rC33TQAUGXG91BArFctDeCgtTRosZ+FQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 6:10 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> My point here is a lot more mundane. The code essentially does
> _hash_pageinit(), overwriting the whole page, and *then* conditionally
> acquires a cleanup lock. It simply is bogus code.
I understood that that was what you meant. It's easy to see why this
code is broken, but to me it seems related to having too much
confidence in what is possible while relying on cleanup locks. That's
just my take.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-14 01:28:34 | Re: New "single-call SRF" APIs are very confusingly named |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-10-14 01:10:41 | Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock |