| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: add assertion for palloc in signal handlers |
| Date: | 2026-02-18 04:25:25 |
| Message-ID: | x7dd2wksmkbwhkrarcux6kcyytlqilog563os444jxkao4jom3@uesjxkuavf7f |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2026-02-18 02:17:34 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > I'd advocate for adding an InSpinlock or such at the same time, but admittedly
> > there's not really anything forcing that to happen together.
>
> What would you do with the InSpinlock flag? Forbid palloc()'s etc. while
> holding a spinlock? I guess, although I'm not too worried about that.
Forbid other spinlocks, elog, palloc, lwlock, for starters. I've seen all of
those in patches in the last years.
> Spinlocks are not held for long.
That's what should be the case, yet we semi-regularly get patches that don't
follow that rule...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nisha Moond | 2026-02-18 04:39:03 | Re: pgstat include expansion |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2026-02-18 04:21:28 | Re: index prefetching |