Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1rRxro-00AU56-UU
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:13:49 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1rRxro-005f1S-0L
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:13:48 +0000
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <zhihuifan1213@163.com>)
	id 1rRxrn-005f1A-5T
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:13:47 +0000
Received: from m12.mail.163.com ([220.181.12.217])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <zhihuifan1213@163.com>)
	id 1rRxri-002p7J-Sk
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:13:45 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com;
	s=s110527; h=From:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:
	Content-Type; bh=BDpgPl0BYqNEgl1MB+0iLBhmayUltBw8gLHV2z7FP3s=;
	b=SKpOP0VPbrzzW4ASxgyzqCy0fI0VwF59C9nQ0CWytk81pm0qEDtAELrX/6vFU5
	uAszDzknlKMJp/LMDwpvdmeJLzOQ67KvEGbUNWSblHbWJXP6RHoDuObLDeGwL3c0
	5dfKL5rOcKuk6ya0i3b/1wBIZL91GkPQnBUutX5O4mGg4=
Received: from b97369165980 (unknown [140.205.118.82])
	by zwqz-smtp-mta-g3-0 (Coremail) with SMTP id
 _____wC3b04+oq5l6W8+Bg--.13408S3;
	Tue, 23 Jan 2024 01:13:35 +0800 (CST)
References: <87plyhvama.fsf@163.com> <871qaso7ub.fsf@163.com>
 <CA+TgmoabLxQCbnatgdcO_VZKQtZqnj4c0zg3ovavqBZBh+QYcA@mail.gmail.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>
User-agent: mu4e 1.10.7; emacs 29.1
From: Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Andres Freund
 <andres@anarazel.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Munro
 <tmunro@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 01:10:17 +0800
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoaVPzXB-azTM1_g+e=QDN0Uu0vSGUQsXxRfL7ZwnQX=wA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <878r4hwatd.fsf@163.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-CM-TRANSID: _____wC3b04+oq5l6W8+Bg--.13408S3
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjDUn29KB7ZKAUJUUUUU529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7v73
	VFW2AGmfu7bjvjm3AaLaJ3UbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxUU0edUUUUU
X-Originating-IP: [140.205.118.82]
X-CM-SenderInfo: x2klx3xlid0iqsrtqiywtou0bp/1tbiVB9tU2VOBLqsHAAAsQ
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/878r4hwatd.fsf%40163.com>
Precedence: bulk


Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:58=E2=80=AFAM 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.=20

--=20
Best Regards
Andy Fan