From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why is lorikeet so unstable in v14 branch only? |
Date: | 2022-03-27 17:01:31 |
Message-ID: | 380708.1648400491@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> And maybe there's a good case for also
>> surrounding some of the code in WaitOnLock() with "if (len) ..."
> +1. I'll make it so, and check the other callers too.
I had second thoughts about that part after realizing that callers
cannot tell the difference between "ps_display is disabled" and
"the activity part of the display is currently empty". In the latter
case I think we'd rather have WaitOnLock still append " waiting";
and it's not like PS_USE_NONE is so common as to be worth optimizing
for. (Else we'd have identified this problem sooner.)
> Once I push this, you should remove the update_process_title hack
> from lorikeet's config, since that was just a workaround until
> we tracked down the problem, which I think we just did.
Minimal fix pushed, so please adjust that animal's config.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-27 17:18:46 | Re: Add pg_freespacemap extension sql test |
Previous Message | James Coleman | 2022-03-27 17:00:11 | Re: Document atthasmissing default optimization avoids verification table scan |