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
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()? |