Re: Signaling of waiting for a cleanup lock?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Signaling of waiting for a cleanup lock?
Date: 2014-04-14 16:53:57
Message-ID: 20140414165357.GX4161@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-04-14 12:21:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> AFAICS, the big advantage of something like this is that we'd get
> proper deadlock detection, and that's not a trivial point.

Hm. Is this actually something we need? I am not aware of deadlock prone
scenarios involving buffer pins during normal processing (HS is another
matter).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-04-14 16:55:35 Re: Including replication slot data in base backups
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-04-14 16:51:02 Re: Race condition between PREPARE TRANSACTION and COMMIT PREPARED (was Re: Problem with txid_snapshot_in/out() functionality)