Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!)
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 11487.1284315140@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07:
Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> However, that also means that the whole concept of OwnLatch/DisownLatch
> is entirely redundant, and only there for asserts because it doesn't do
> anything else. That seems a little strange to me, as well, so (at
> minimum) it should be documented that the functions really have no
> effect on execution and are required only to support debugging.
Uh, this is nonsense. You have to have something like these functions
to support transferring ownership of a latch from one process to
another, which is required at least for the walreceiver usage.
It's correct that the latch code itself isn't trying very hard to avoid
a race condition in acquiring ownership, but that doesn't make the whole
thing useless, it just means that we're assuming that will be avoided
by logic elsewhere. If there is a bug elsewhere that allows two
different processes to try to take ownership of the same latch, the
current coding will expose that bug soon enough.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: