| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2020-06-03 04:36:34 |
| Message-ID: | 939923.1591158994@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> Indeed, this was incorrect. And you may not have noticed, but we have
> a second instance of that in LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot()
> that goes down to 9.4 and b89e151. I used a dirty-still-efficient
> hack to detect that, and that's the only instance I have spotted.
Ugh, that is just horrid. I experimented with the attached patch
but it did not find any other problems. Still, that only proves
something about code paths that are taken during check-world, and
we know that our test coverage is not very good :-(.
Should we think about adding automated detection of this type of
mistake? I don't like the attached as-is because of the #include
footprint expansion, but maybe we can find a better way.
> I am not sure if that's worth worrying a back-patch, but we should
> really address that at least on HEAD.
It's actually worse in the back branches, because elog() did not have
a good short-circuit path like ereport() does. +1 for back-patch.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| detect-misuse-of-spinlocks.patch | text/x-diff | 3.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-06-03 04:41:21 | Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section. |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-06-03 03:22:08 | Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section. |