| From: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: sequence indexes |
| Date: | 2002-01-29 16:28:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20020129162804.GA1525@rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:43:52AM -0500, mlw wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> >
> > One must be very careful not to introduce reverse priority problems -
> > i.e. a
> > lower priority process locking some resource and then not letting go
> > while
> > higher priority processes are blocked from running due to needing that
> > lock.
> I understand that, hmm. I wonder if the lock code could boost the priority of a
> process which owns a lock.
>
The classic approach to solving priority inversion is to allow for
priority inheritance: that is, the low-priority process stays low
priority, even when it locks a resource, until there is contention for
that resource from a higher priority process: then it inherits the higher
priority of the waiting process.
Ross
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2002-01-29 17:12:58 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.1.3 on OpenServer 5 |
| Previous Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2002-01-29 15:38:43 | Re: inline is not ANSI C |