| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Adding locks statistics |
| Date: | 2026-04-06 06:34:44 |
| Message-ID: | adNUBGqGK2YB1azG@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 03:19:57PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Now looking at it, and for the reason why 010 for concurrent indexes
> does not complain..
This one was a simple puzzle: there was a race condition between the
detach done by a local point and the wait/detach sequence. As we want
a detach, dropping the local point is proving to work here.
I am going to do a few more runs to gain some more confidence.
Bertrand, could you confirm please?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Fix-detach-timing-problem-in-lock-stats-test.patch | text/plain | 1.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | lakshmi | 2026-04-06 06:54:46 | Re: Pgbench: remove synchronous prepare |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-04-06 06:19:57 | Re: Adding locks statistics |