Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <tmunro(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay
Date: 2024-01-22 17:01:29
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaVPzXB-azTM1_g+e=QDN0Uu0vSGUQsXxRfL7ZwnQX=wA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:58 AM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> wrote:
> I get your point! Acquiring an already held spinlock in quickdie is
> unlikely to happen, but since our existing infrastructure can handle it,
> then there is no reason to bypass it.

No, the existing infrastructure cannot handle that at all.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-01-22 17:07:23 Re: Improving EXPLAIN's display of SubPlan nodes
Previous Message vignesh C 2024-01-22 16:59:34 Re: XLog size reductions: smaller XLRec block header for PG17