From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Assertion failure in SnapBuildInitialSnapshot() |
Date: | 2023-01-30 11:29:48 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KDE0xaC1YgHzSUQ3yVvQv+CY96UOB7CRdaSw2CHeXu7w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 4:31 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for making the patch! I'm still considering whether this approach is
> correct, but I can put a comment to your patch anyway.
>
> ```
> - Assert(!already_locked || LWLockHeldByMe(ProcArrayLock));
> -
> - if (!already_locked)
> - LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
> + Assert(LWLockHeldByMe(ProcArrayLock));
> ```
>
> In this function, we regard that the ProcArrayLock has been already acquired as
> exclusive mode and modify data. I think LWLockHeldByMeInMode() should be used
> instead of LWLockHeldByMe().
>
Right, this is even evident from the comments atop
ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin("If already_locked is true,
ProcArrayLock has already been acquired exclusively.". But, I am not
sure if it is a good idea to remove 'already_locked' parameter,
especially in back branches as this is an exposed API.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nitin Jadhav | 2023-01-30 11:42:27 | Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-01-30 11:27:19 | Re: Assertion failure in SnapBuildInitialSnapshot() |