On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 7:08 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sure. I've attached the updated patch. I just added the commit message. >
@@ -1815,6 +1818,8 @@ LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot(XLogRecPtr current_lsn, XLogRecPtr restart confirmed_flush = slot->data.confirmed_flush; SpinLockRelease(&slot->mutex); + spin_released = true; + elog(DEBUG1, "failed to increase restart lsn: proposed %X/%X, after %X/%X, current candidate %X/%X, current after %X/%X, flushed up to %X/%X", LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(restart_lsn), LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(current_lsn), @@ -1823,6 +1828,9 @@ LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot(XLogRecPtr current_lsn, XLogRecPtr restart LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(confirmed_flush)); } + if (!spin_released) + SpinLockRelease(&slot->mutex); This coding pattern looks odd to me. We can consider releasing spinlock in the other two if/else if checks. I understand it is a matter of individual preference, so, if you and or others prefer the current way, that is also fine with me. Other than this, the patch looks good to me. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
