Feedback-ID: id4a34324:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:17:19 -0500
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes)
Message-ID: <ozeya4lgkxxvs632bkbn3nqruhwnoylkb3mstbubvlvbv7vabm@up77cwutyspi>
References: <yivb2evcrj7fna5ymuunw3g5u5xxttwjbjxaa4ofkfkviystjv@4dfylftqxyxh>
 <6kmid26do57ykqfpvq6iieniy4djsymhrypkjccazq5g4bbe6a@2y6owwv7qpex>
 <CAEze2WgGe8vjj3jiWqUugWuwLJ9cLryaGrnASjm-yJ=tEALX2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <pmto7djq64mei53p7r5smfync2waittilhbuzc7j7lpflf2b3y@laz7r76y5pux>
 <CAEze2WjeK9CY003S4dmCugv_H4tz9AaXgnqW+wTc=BaPDg+2xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3je3ahgf7rrmmurxo6hnlhg5d3ffwfrtjwjxd6jm5srlv5iebp@vxqk5qtgmowr>
 <3w7v3w6a57jnssokap4k7thoekig72flnyhd4wp3yftzdd7lm7@f6lpcfen6hr7>
 <6rgb2nvhyvnszz4ul3wfzlf5rheb2kkwrglthnna7qhe24onwr@vw27225tkyar>
 <hqbph6smbatxi6fcixjnzremjbt5m4ks2ma35ktrqgrzdffnbi@x7cgu5ses6jm>
 <CAAKRu_Z9BzF=mHeiy+tUJ524_c7q0sBabschMX83Shag2XohpA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAKRu_Z9BzF=mHeiy+tUJ524_c7q0sBabschMX83Shag2XohpA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ozeya4lgkxxvs632bkbn3nqruhwnoylkb3mstbubvlvbv7vabm%40up77cwutyspi>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 2025-11-24 16:04:41 -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 3:58 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2025-11-19 21:47:49 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > 0001: A straight-up bugfix in lwlock.c - albeit for a bug that seems currently
> > >       effectively harmless.
> >
> > Does anybody have opinions about whether to backpatch this fix? Given that it
> > has no real consequences I'm mildly inclined not to, but maybe there are cases
> > where the additional wait list lock cycle matters?
> 
> Since it is a mistake, I am mildly in favor of backporting to avoid
> confusion for future developers. It's pretty weird that LWLockWakeup()
> has to be called again to actually unset LW_FLAG_HAS_WAITERS. But
> since it's not really harmful, this is a very mild opinion.

Thanks for chiming in, done.

Greetings,

Andres Freund