Re: lock on object is already held
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: lock on object is already held |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 18886.1385573437@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: lock on object is already held (Daniel Wood <dwood@salesforce.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: lock on object is already held
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Wood <dwood@salesforce.com> writes:
> Does the original version of my stress test not repro the problem on 9.2?
[ tries it ... ] No, it doesn't, or at least the MTBF is a couple orders
of magnitude better than on 9.3.
Another odd thing (seen with my short version as well as your original)
is that 9.3/HEAD run the test case enormously faster than 9.2 and 9.1
do. The older versions seem to spend a lot of time sleeping, which
I don't understand.
> Why does LockAcquireExtended() test for "nLocks == 0" in the "if
> (dontWait)" block before calling RemoveLocalLock()?
Looks like a useless test to me --- we wouldn't be here at all if nLocks
had been positive to start with, and there's nothing in between that
could raise the count. On the other hand, removing a LOCALLOCK that
did have positive count would be disastrous. Maybe what would be
more appropriate is an Assert(nLocks == 0) in RemoveLocalLock().
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: