| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Brandon Palmer" <bap(at)scl(dot)cwru(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Problems w/ LO |
| Date: | 1999-05-28 02:38:46 |
| Message-ID: | 199905280238.LAA18484@srapc451.sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>I am having some problems w/ LO in postgres 6.5.snapshot (date marked
>5/27). Here is the problem:
Seems 6.5 has a problem with LOs.
Sorry, but I don't have time right now to track this problem since I
have another one that has higher priority.
I've been looking into the "stuck spin lock" problem under high
load. Unless it being solved, PostgreSQL would not be usable in the
"real world."
Question to hackers: Why does s_lock_stuck() call abort()? Shouldn't
be elog(ERROR) or elog(FATAL)?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-05-28 04:45:53 | Proposed article on PostgreSQL development |
| Previous Message | Pablo Funes | 1999-05-27 22:42:11 | nonblocking lock? |