Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25181.1494560644@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... I'd like to propose to change relation >> extension lock management so that it works using LWLock instead. > That's not a good idea because it'll make the code that executes while > holding that lock noninterruptible. Is that really a problem? We typically only hold it over one kernel call, which ought to be noninterruptible anyway. Also, the CheckpointLock is held for far longer, and we've not heard complaints about that one. I'm slightly suspicious of the claim that we don't need deadlock detection. There are places that e.g. touch FSM while holding this lock. It might be all right but it needs close review, not just an assertion that it's not a problem. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: