Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11487.1284315140@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07:
Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes: > However, that also means that the whole concept of OwnLatch/DisownLatch > is entirely redundant, and only there for asserts because it doesn't do > anything else. That seems a little strange to me, as well, so (at > minimum) it should be documented that the functions really have no > effect on execution and are required only to support debugging. Uh, this is nonsense. You have to have something like these functions to support transferring ownership of a latch from one process to another, which is required at least for the walreceiver usage. It's correct that the latch code itself isn't trying very hard to avoid a race condition in acquiring ownership, but that doesn't make the whole thing useless, it just means that we're assuming that will be avoided by logic elsewhere. If there is a bug elsewhere that allows two different processes to try to take ownership of the same latch, the current coding will expose that bug soon enough. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: