Re: Quite strange crash
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Quite strange crash |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1879.979064894@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | RE: Quite strange crash ("Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:
> START_/END_CRIT_SECTION is mostly CritSectionCount++/--.
> Recording could be made as LockedSpinLocks[LockedSpinCounter++] = &spinlock
> in pre-allocated array.
Yeah, I suppose. We already do record locking of all the fixed
spinlocks (BufMgrLock etc), it's just the per-buffer spinlocks that
are missing from that (and CRIT_SECTION calls). Would it be reasonable
to assume that only one buffer spinlock could be held at a time?
> (BTW, it's bad that pg_ctl doesn't wait on shutdown by default).
I agree. Anyone object to changing pg_ctl to do -w by default?
What should we call the switch to tell it to not wait? -n?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: