> On 28 Jan 2024, at 17:49, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> I'd appreciate it if you or Horiguchi-san can update his patch to remove
> use of usleep in favor of a CV in multixact, and keep this CF entry to
> cover it.
Sure! Sounds great!
> Perhaps a test to make the code reach the usleep(1000) can be written
> using injection points (49cd2b93d7db)?
I've tried to prototype something like that. But interesting point between GetNewMultiXactId() and RecordNewMultiXact()
isa critical section, and we cannot have injection points in critical sections...
Also, to implement such a test we need "wait" type of injection points, see step 2 in attachment. With this type of
injectionpoints I can stop a backend amidst entering information about new MultiXact.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.