Re: Undetected Deadlock
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Undetected Deadlock |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1520798.1644450805@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Undetected Deadlock (Michael Harris <harmic@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Michael Harris <harmic@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 09:57, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Do you want to try this and see if it actually adds any robustness with your buggy code? > Sorry for the delayed response, & thanks for the patch. > I wasn't able to test with our actual application because it could > take days for it to actually trigger the problem, so I tested it with > a simulation, which you can find here: > https://github.com/harmic/pg_almloss > With that simulation I could attach gdb to the backend and see that > signal_pending & signal_due_at were being reset in the expected way, > even when a missed interrupt was triggered. > I'm convinced your patch improves robustness under the scenario we saw. Great, thanks for testing! regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: