Re: pgsql: Move cancel key generation to after forking the backend
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Move cancel key generation to after forking the backend |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c72c5e67-4c76-483c-9c93-fb19cfac5da4@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Move cancel key generation to after forking the backend (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>) |
Список | pgsql-committers |
On 29/07/2024 17:30, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 29/07/2024 16:25, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> On 29/07/2024 16:23, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>>> On 29 Jul 2024, at 15:18, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> >>>> Move cancel key generation to after forking the backend >>> >>> longfin seems a tad sad about this one: >>> >>> procsignal.c:87:3: error: redefinition of typedef 'ProcSignalHeader' is a C11 feature [-Werror,-Wtypedef-redefinition] >>> } ProcSignalHeader; >>> ^ >>> ../../../../src/include/storage/procsignal.h:77:33: note: previous definition is here >>> typedef struct ProcSignalHeader ProcSignalHeader; >>> ^ >>> 1 error generated. >>> make[4]: *** [procsignal.o] Error 1 >> >> Yep, thanks, just noticed and fixed it myself. I should add that to the >> list of compiler options I use... > > The --disable-spinlocks animals are still failing, however. Weird. I can > reproduce it locally, and started to debug but I have no clue what's > wrong. I'll keep debugging, but I'm all ears if anyone has ideas. Found & fixed. I released the spinlock twice in EmitProcSignalBarrier. Oops. I'm a little surprised there isn't an assertion for that. Would be useful. This might have gone unnoticed for a long time if not for the --disable-spinlocks implementation, and we've been talking about removing that. -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: