| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Small locking bugs in hs |
| Date: | 2009-12-28 00:16:25 |
| Message-ID: | 200912280116.25771.andres@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday 27 December 2009 23:10:09 Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-27 at 20:12 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > While unlikely to cause issues two new LWLockAcquire calls use the wrong
> > locking mode.
> > Patch attached.
> It's important to explain why you think something is a bug, rather than
> make that claim on its own.
Youre right.
My idea was that another SIGINT handler (e.g. normal client query cancel) is
running while CONFLICT_MODE_FATAL is issued that might get ignored. Thus the
fatal error might get ignored.
But actually that was mostly my gut feeling - I am not really understanding
the whole query cancellation process yet.
(Its not exactly unlikely that my patch does not fix that though)
I think that if under protection of a shared lock the protected objects gets
altered, that definitely needs to be commented from my pov...
In the reverse case its not as important but still a good idea.
> However, I think I see a different issue with conflict handling, so
> looking at this again was worthwhile, thanks. Will come back with more
> over next few days.
Cool.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2009-12-28 00:22:28 | Re: Small locking bugs in hs |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2009-12-27 23:15:51 | Re: Application name patch - v3 |