Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Minor fix in lwlock.c

From: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Minor fix in lwlock.c
Date: 2005-04-08 05:29:15
Message-ID: d354v5$2gju$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes>
> The alternative would be to move the Unlock loop in front of the
> addition of the LWLock to held_lwlocks[], but I think that cure
> is probably worse than the disease --- the chance of an error during
> Unlock seems nonzero.

Another alternative might use PG_TRY/PG_CATCH to make sure that the
semaphore is released. But seems this costs too much ...


In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-08 05:48:09
Subject: Re: Minor fix in lwlock.c
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-08 05:20:42
Subject: Re: Minor fix in lwlock.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group