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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
