| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |
| Date: | 2011-06-07 17:10:12 |
| Message-ID: | 4DEE5B74.8020204@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07.06.2011 20:03, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> We've also already removed the reserved entry for scratch space
>
> This and Tom's concerns have me wondering if we should bracket the
> two sections of code where we use the reserved lock target entry
> with HOLD_INTERRUPTS() and RESUME_INTERRUPTS().
That's not necessary. You're holding a lwlock, which implies that
interrupts are held off already. There's a HOLD_INTERRUPTS() call in
LWLockAcquire and RESUME_INTERRUPTS() in LWLockRelease.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-07 17:10:48 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-07 17:03:29 | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |