> On 28 Jan 2024, at 17:49, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > I'd appreciate it if you or Horiguchi-san can update his patch to remove > use of usleep in favor of a CV in multixact, and keep this CF entry to > cover it.
Sure! Sounds great! > Perhaps a test to make the code reach the usleep(1000) can be written > using injection points (49cd2b93d7db)? I've tried to prototype something like that. But interesting point between GetNewMultiXactId() and RecordNewMultiXact() is a critical section, and we cannot have injection points in critical sections... Also, to implement such a test we need "wait" type of injection points, see step 2 in attachment. With this type of injection points I can stop a backend amidst entering information about new MultiXact. Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
0001-Add-conditional-variable-to-wait-for-next-MultXact-o.patch
Description: Binary data
0002-Add-wait-type-for-injection-points.patch
Description: Binary data
0003-Try-to-test-multixact-CV-sleep.patch
Description: Binary data
