RE: Quite strange crash
От | Mikheev, Vadim |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Quite strange crash |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3253@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Quite strange crash (Denis Perchine <dyp@perchine.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Yup. I had just come to the realization that we'd be best > off to treat the *entire* period from SpinAcquire to SpinRelease > as a critical section for the purposes of die(). That is, response > to SIGTERM will be held off until we have released the spinlock. > Most of the places where we grab spinlocks would have to make such > a critical section anyway, at least for large parts of the time that > they are holding the spinlock, because they are manipulating shared > data structures and the instantaneous intermediate states aren't always > self-consistent. So we might as well follow the KISS principle and > just do START_CRIT_SECTION in SpinAcquire and END_CRIT_SECTION in > SpinRelease. > > Vadim, any objection? No one for the moment. If we'll just add XXX_CRIT_SECTION to SpinXXX funcs without changing anything else then it will be easy to remove them later (in the event we'll find any problems with this), so - do it. Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: