pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 01:31:59 +0800
Message-ID: <874jf5w9wa.fsf@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+Tgmoa4qJ4xVZi-ez0ZL-5KUT2cMiDs5eiHOG3UUBYgN33hoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87plyhvama.fsf@163.com>
	<87sf37mdqq.fsf@163.com>
	<CA+TgmobMJLKnsR_pLnOmRdb7+AzCLdNPFOqG4TAatU1F_4gyaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<87o7dum084.fsf@163.com>
	<CAEze2WggP-2Dhocmdhp-LxBzic=MXRgGA_tmv1G_9n-PDt2MQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<87h6jkmucz.fsf@163.com>
	<CA+TgmoYJoFsn3Mqhj0_0HNgVjtPfahJMgF2Pb7wzDcRFvZuK9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<8734uz17va.fsf@163.com>
	<87o7diyf3z.fsf@163.com>
	<CA+TgmoZNo2hedpnyhr3bMUZ+grzp1+2B4daG6O_NeJPh0QnhMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87edeexznn.fsf@163.com>
	<CA+TgmobPBwwVmtth1e0mJYKyLnwN1v7d1OWJ2toiwFrnFAOo-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a5p2xc2v.fsf@163.com>
	<871qadygzz.fsf@163.com>
	<87wms2w9hn.fsf@163.com>
	<87o7ddx26q.fsf@163.com>
	<CA+TgmoaaMow6F3He-ScxqAP3vej2P1=HWj_ijBSyVYmyKwfF=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<87cyttwbin.fsf@163.com>
	<CA+TgmoaVPzXB-azTM1_g+e=QDN0Uu0vSGUQsXxRfL7ZwnQX=wA@mail.gmail.com>
	<878r4hwatd.fsf@163.com>
	<CA+Tgmoa4qJ4xVZi-ez0ZL-5KUT2cMiDs5eiHOG3UUBYgN33hoQ@mail.gmail.com>


Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:13 PM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:58 AM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.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.
>>
>> Actually I mean we can handle it without 0003. am I still wrong?
>> Without the 0003, if we acquiring the spin lock which is held by
>> ourself already. VerifyNoSpinLocksHeld in SpinLockAcquire should catch
>> it.
>
> But that's only going to run in assert-only builds. The whole point of
> the patch set is to tell developers that there are bugs in the code
> that need fixing, not to catch problems that actually occur in
> production.

I see. As to this aspect, then yes.

-- 
Best Regards
Andy Fan






view thread (50+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <874jf5w9wa.fsf@163.com>
Permalink:  ../874jf5w9wa.fsf@163.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/874jf5w9wa.fsf@163.com

 · 

reply
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-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: zhihuifan1213@163.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, tmunro@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay
  In-Reply-To: <874jf5w9wa.fsf@163.com>

* 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