Re: VM corruption on standby
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: VM corruption on standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGLZNMYWj0r5Cda7gBPgJ3wR5wQwvKe9D2DxhVa3thT9zA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: VM corruption on standby (Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: VM corruption on standby
Re: VM corruption on standby |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 12:00 AM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2025, at 15:25, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: > > I believe we need some > > general solution. We might have a special kind of condition variable, > > a critical section condition variable, where both waiting and > > signaling must be invoked only in a critical section. However, I dig > > into our Latch and WaitEventSet, it seems there are too many > > assumptions about postmaster death. So, a critical section condition > > variable probably should be implemented on top of semaphore. Any > > thoughts? > > We want Latch\WaitEventSet, but for critical section. Is it easier to implement from scratch (from semaphores), or is iteasier to fix and maintain existing Latch\WaitEventSet? FWIW I'm working on a patch set that kills all backends without releasing any locks when the postmaster exists. Then CVs and other latch-based stuff should be safe in this context. Work was interrupted by a vacation but I hope to post something in the nexts couple of days, over on that other thread I started...
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: