| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes) |
| Date: | 2025-11-25 00:17:19 |
| Message-ID: | ozeya4lgkxxvs632bkbn3nqruhwnoylkb3mstbubvlvbv7vabm@up77cwutyspi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2025-11-24 16:04:41 -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 3:58 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On 2025-11-19 21:47:49 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > 0001: A straight-up bugfix in lwlock.c - albeit for a bug that seems currently
> > > effectively harmless.
> >
> > Does anybody have opinions about whether to backpatch this fix? Given that it
> > has no real consequences I'm mildly inclined not to, but maybe there are cases
> > where the additional wait list lock cycle matters?
>
> Since it is a mistake, I am mildly in favor of backporting to avoid
> confusion for future developers. It's pretty weird that LWLockWakeup()
> has to be called again to actually unset LW_FLAG_HAS_WAITERS. But
> since it's not really harmful, this is a very mild opinion.
Thanks for chiming in, done.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-11-25 00:18:26 | Re: [Proposal] Adding callback support for custom statistics kinds |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-11-25 00:09:38 | Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes) |