Hi,
Partially replying here to an email on -committers [1].
On 2024-07-29 13:57:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > However, I still don't think it's a problem to assert that the lock is held
> > in
> > in the unlock "routine". As mentioned before, the spinlock implementation
Hi,
On 2024-07-29 21:00:35 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 29/07/2024 20:48, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2024-07-29 13:25:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > > > Yeah I'm not worried about that at all. Also, the assert is made when
> > > > you have already release
On 29/07/2024 20:48, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2024-07-29 13:25:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
Yeah I'm not worried about that at all. Also, the assert is made when
you have already released the spinlock; you are already out of the
critical section.
Not in the patch Andre
Andres Freund writes:
> However, I still don't think it's a problem to assert that the lock is held in
> in the unlock "routine". As mentioned before, the spinlock implementation
> itself has never followed the "just straight line code" rule that users of
> spinlocks are supposed to follow.
Yeah,
Hi,
On 2024-07-29 13:25:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > Yeah I'm not worried about that at all. Also, the assert is made when
> > you have already released the spinlock; you are already out of the
> > critical section.
>
> Not in the patch Andres posted.
Which seems
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Yeah I'm not worried about that at all. Also, the assert is made when
> you have already released the spinlock; you are already out of the
> critical section.
Not in the patch Andres posted.
regards, tom lane
On 29/07/2024 19:51, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2024-07-29 09:40:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2024-07-29 12:33:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund writes:
On 2024-07-29 11:31:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
There was some recent discussion about getting rid of
--disable-spinlocks on the grou
Hi,
On 2024-07-29 09:40:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-07-29 12:33:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > On 2024-07-29 11:31:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> There was some recent discussion about getting rid of
> > >> --disable-spinlocks on the grounds that nobody w
