From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:32:53 -0400
Message-ID: <28491.1560526373@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <28311.1560526116@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20190614151109.GA12229@alvherre.pgsql>
<28311.1560526116@sss.pgh.pa.us>
I wrote:
>> Hm, I don't get that warning. Does this patch silence it, please?
> Uh, no patch attached? But initializing the variable where it's
> declared would certainly silence it.
BTW, after looking around a bit I wonder if this complaint isn't
exposing an actual logic bug. Shouldn't skip_tuple_lock have
a lifetime similar to first_time?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, etsuro.fujita@gmail.com
Subject: Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock
In-Reply-To: <28491.1560526373@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox