Re: injection_points: Switch wait/wakeup to use atomics rather than latches

From: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: injection_points: Switch wait/wakeup to use atomics rather than latches
Date: 2026-06-02 05:13:01
Message-ID: E9AD8D63-AD24-448F-BC9E-CC9D1CCC6D02@yandex-team.ru
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 2 Jun 2026, at 09:15, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 04:25:40PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> The shared memory segment must be released before we attempt recovery.
>> But that's exactly what I wanted anyway. Thank you!
>
> How do you guarantee that a wait position is reached in the case where
> you don't have access to wait events to make sure that the wait point
> is reached?

In a research test? sleep(1)

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2026-06-02 05:18:49 Re: Unify parallel worker handling for index builds and instrumentation
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2026-06-02 04:43:56 Re: A few message wording/formatting cleanup patches