Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGKnQbgiLW+uRT7yUY293ebYHN45r9dz9rOwSa5Fuy25-g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 8:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:21 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> What I'd suggest is to promote that failure to elog(PANIC), which > >> would at least give us the PID and if we're lucky a stack trace. > > > That proposed change is fine with me. > > > As to the question of whether it's a real bug, nobody can prove > > anything unless we actually run it down. > > Agreed, and I'll even grant your point that if it is an HPUX-specific > or IA64-specific bug, it is not worth spending huge amounts of time > to isolate. The problem is that we don't know that. What we do know > so far is that if it can occur elsewhere, it's rare --- so we'd better > be prepared to glean as much info as possible if we do get such a > failure. Hence my thought of s/ERROR/PANIC/. And I'd be in favor of > any other low-effort change we can make to instrument the case better. OK, pushed (except I realised that all the PIDs involved were int, not pid_t). Let's see...
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: