Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Parag Paul <parag(dot)paul(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres
Date: 2024-04-11 00:35:38
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa5cHG3UO9CRUJY8iVWf7Hgj22-5R8y2vkL2U_LXQB6sA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 4:40 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm not worried about it being slower, but about whether it could
> report "stuck spinlock" in cases where the existing code succeeds.
> While that seems at least theoretically possible, it seems like
> if you hit it you have got problems that need to be fixed anyway.
> Nonetheless, I'm kind of leaning to not back-patching. I do agree
> on getting it into HEAD sooner not later though.

I just want to mention that I have heard of "stuck spinlock" happening
in production just because the server was busy. And I think that's not
intended. The timeout is supposed to be high enough that you only hit
it if there's a bug in the code. At least AIUI. But it isn't.

I know that's a separate issue, but I think it's an important one. It
shouldn't happen that a system which was installed to defend against
bugs in the code causes more problems than the bugs themselves.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-04-11 01:01:23 Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-04-11 00:23:34 Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?