From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, pasim(at)vmware(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section. |
Date: | 2020-06-17 00:27:36 |
Message-ID: | 20200617002736.3m6k5dh3eetwrmup@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-06-16 19:46:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I experimented with making the compiler warn about about some of these
> > kinds of mistakes without needing full test coverage:
>
> > I was able to get clang to warn about things like using palloc in signal
> > handlers, or using palloc while holding a spinlock. Which would be
> > great, except that it doesn't warn when there's an un-annotated
> > intermediary function. Even when that function is in the same TU.
>
> Hm. Couldn't we make "calling an un-annotated function" be a violation
> in itself?
I don't see a way to do that with these annotations, unfortunately.
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.html
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#acquire-capability-acquire-shared-capability
> Certainly in the case of spinlocks, what we want is pretty
> nearly a total ban on calling anything at all. I wouldn't cry too hard
> about having a similar policy for signal handlers.
It'd be interesting to try and see how invasive that'd be, if it were
possible to enforce. But...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2020-06-17 00:31:48 | Re: language cleanups in code and docs |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-06-17 00:09:26 | Re: Add A Glossary |