public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]>
Cc: Fujii Masao <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Logging in LockBufferForCleanup()
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:43:32 +0900
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 06:22:05PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Previously the code looked somewhat safe to use in critical section like
> blocks (although whether it'd be good idea to use in one is a different
> question), but not after. Even if not used in a critical section, adding new
> failure conditions to low-level code that's holding LWLocks etc. doesn't seem
> like a good idea.
This is an interesting point. Would the addition of one or more
critical sections in this area impact its performance in any way?
> It also just increases the overhead of LockBuffer(). Adding palloc(), copying
> of process title, GetCurrentTimestamp() to a low level routine like this isn't
> free - even if it's mostly in the contended paths.
Good point.
--
Michael
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (833B, ../[email protected]/2-signature.asc)
download
view thread (2+ messages)
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Logging in LockBufferForCleanup()
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox