Great! Looks very good. Thanks a lot!
--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:33:16PM +0300, Maxim Orlov wrote:
> Done. Except for a new name for "logit" variable. Unfortunately, I can't
> think of anything sane. As an example I looked at sequence.c. The same name
> is used there. I will gladly change this name to whatever you want if it
> still lo
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 11:26, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>
> I’d suggest to give some more descriptive name to “logit” and expand
> comment “/* sanity check */“. This comment was easier to understand when
> elog() was near, but now IMO we can have few words about what is going on.
Done. Except for a
Michael, thanks a lot for the detailed explanation.
> On 26 Feb 2025, at 11:57, Maxim Orlov wrote:
>
> Indeed. PFA the correct one.
>
>
I’d suggest to give some more descriptive name to “logit” and expand comment
“/* sanity check */“. This comment was easier to understand when elog() was
ne
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 07:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> This fix is not correct. No system function calls (well basically
> most of them) or even more no PostgreSQL-specific calls should happen
> while holding a spinlock. elog() is a good example of what not to do.
> One example: imagine a pal
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 09:08:53AM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> Looks like the oversight in 9d9b9d4. IMO the fix is correct.
if (pg_atomic_read_u32(&slot->pss_pid) != 0)
{
- SpinLockRelease(&slot->pss_mutex);
elog(LOG, "process %d taking over ProcSig
> On 26 Feb 2025, at 00:34, Maksim.Melnikov wrote:
>
> In applied patch I removed spinlock release in if clause.
Looks like the oversight in 9d9b9d4. IMO the fix is correct.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
.
In applied patch I removed spinlock release in if clause.
From ece7b5d6bf16111ad388fcb47ed9fd7572ef151e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Maksim Melnikov
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 22:22:36 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Spinlock can be released twice in procsignal.c
---
src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c | 1 -
1 file changed,
