Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2024-01-18 14:00:58 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > The LockBufHdr also used init_local_spin_delay / perform_spin_delay
>> > infrastruce and then it has the same issue like ${subject}, it is pretty
>> > like the code in s_lock; Based on my current knowledge, I think we
>> > should add the check there.
>>
>> I'd like to hear from Andres, if possible. @Andres: Should these
>> sanity checks apply only to spin locks per se, or also to buffer
>> header locks?
>
> They also should apply to buffer header locks. The exact same dangers apply
> there. The only reason this isn't using a plain spinlock is that this way we
> can modify more state with a single atomic operation. But all the dangers of
> using spinlocks apply just as well.
Thanks for speaking on this!
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan