Re: Quite strange crash - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Quite strange crash
Date
Msg-id 1879.979064894@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Quite strange crash  ("Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:
> START_/END_CRIT_SECTION is mostly CritSectionCount++/--.
> Recording could be made as LockedSpinLocks[LockedSpinCounter++] = &spinlock
> in pre-allocated array.

Yeah, I suppose.  We already do record locking of all the fixed
spinlocks (BufMgrLock etc), it's just the per-buffer spinlocks that
are missing from that (and CRIT_SECTION calls).  Would it be reasonable
to assume that only one buffer spinlock could be held at a time?

> (BTW, it's bad that pg_ctl doesn't wait on shutdown by default).

I agree.  Anyone object to changing pg_ctl to do -w by default?
What should we call the switch to tell it to not wait?  -n?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Denis Perchine
Date:
Subject: Re: Quite strange crash
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Quite strange crash