Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, CM Team <cm(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
Date: 2022-05-31 00:08:23
Message-ID: CA+hUKGKnQbgiLW+uRT7yUY293ebYHN45r9dz9rOwSa5Fuy25-g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 8:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:21 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> What I'd suggest is to promote that failure to elog(PANIC), which
> >> would at least give us the PID and if we're lucky a stack trace.
>
> > That proposed change is fine with me.
>
> > As to the question of whether it's a real bug, nobody can prove
> > anything unless we actually run it down.
>
> Agreed, and I'll even grant your point that if it is an HPUX-specific
> or IA64-specific bug, it is not worth spending huge amounts of time
> to isolate. The problem is that we don't know that. What we do know
> so far is that if it can occur elsewhere, it's rare --- so we'd better
> be prepared to glean as much info as possible if we do get such a
> failure. Hence my thought of s/ERROR/PANIC/. And I'd be in favor of
> any other low-effort change we can make to instrument the case better.

OK, pushed (except I realised that all the PIDs involved were int, not
pid_t). Let's see...

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2022-05-31 00:22:37 Re: ParseTzFile doesn't FreeFile on error
Previous Message David Rowley 2022-05-30 22:04:36 Re: PG15 beta1 sort performance regression due to Generation context change