Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> That sucks. It was easy to see that the old fallback barrier
> implementation wasn't re-entrant, but this one should be. And now
> that I look at it again, doesn't the failure message indicate that's
> not the problem anyway?
> ! PANIC: stuck spinlock (c00000000d6f4140) detected at lwlock.c:816
> ! PANIC: stuck spinlock (c00000000d72f6e0) detected at lwlock.c:770
I was assuming that a leaky memory barrier was allowing the spinlock
state to become inconsistent, or at least to be perceived as inconsistent.
But I'm not too clear on how the barrier changes you and Andres have been
making have affected the spinlock code.
regards, tom lane
