| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock |
| Date: | 2022-08-17 18:45:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20220817184534.333uwbebj3rp4gph@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-08-17 08:25:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Regarding the question of whether we need a cleanup lock on the new
> bucket I am not really seeing the advantage of going down that path.
> Simply fixing this code to take a cleanup lock instead of hoping that
> it always gets one by accident is low risk and should fix the observed
> problem. Getting rid of the cleanup lock will be more invasive and I'd
> like to see some evidence that it's a necessary step before we take
> the risk of breaking things.
Given that the cleanup locks in question are "taken" *after* re-initializing
the page, I'm doubtful that's a sane path forward. It seems quite likely to
mislead somebody to rely on it working as a cleanup lock in the future.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-08-17 19:01:54 | static libpq (and other libraries) overwritten on aix |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-08-17 18:36:23 | Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock |