From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Injection points: preloading and runtime arguments |
Date: | 2024-06-06 23:38:46 |
Message-ID: | ZmJIhkc73nvFNEUS@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 03:47:47PM +0500, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> Is it OK to detach() before wakeup()? Or, perhaps, can a detach() do a wakeup() automatically?
It is OK to do a detach before a wakeup. Noah has been relying on
this behavior in an isolation test for a patch he's worked on. See
inplace110-successors-v1.patch here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240512232923.aa.nmisch@google.com
That's also something we've discussed for 33181b48fd0e, where Noah
wanted to emulate in an automated fashion what one can do with a
debugger and one or more breakpoints.
Not sure that wakeup() involving a automated detach() is the behavior
to hide long-term, actually, as there is also an argument for waking
up a point and *not* detach it to force multiple waits.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-06-06 23:48:12 | Re: report on not thread-safe functions |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-06-06 23:20:21 | Re: race condition in pg_class |