From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Improve performance of subsystems on top of SLRU |
Date: | 2024-03-03 21:14:49 |
Message-ID: | 3396247.1709500489@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> And I think it's correct that this is somewhat bogus, or at least
> confusing: the only way to have control back here on line 1371 after
> having executed once is via the "goto retry" line below; and there we
> release "prevlock" and set it to NULL beforehand, so it's impossible for
> prevlock to be NULL. Looking closer I think this code is all confused,
> so I suggest to rework it as shown in the attached patch.
This is certainly simpler, but I notice that it holds the current
LWLock across the line
ptr = (MultiXactMember *) palloc(length * sizeof(MultiXactMember));
where the old code did not. Could the palloc take long enough that
holding the lock is bad?
Also, with this coding the "lock = NULL;" assignment just before
"goto retry" is a dead store. Not sure if Coverity or other static
analyzers would whine about that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-03-04 00:21:15 | pgsql: injection_points: Add wait and wakeup of processes |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-03-03 17:39:48 | pgsql: Replace BackendIds with 0-based ProcNumbers |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-03-03 21:44:34 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-03-03 20:41:18 | Re: Shared detoast Datum proposal |