Re: [HACKERS] [BUG FIX] Removing NamedLWLockTrancheArray

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Тема Re: [HACKERS] [BUG FIX] Removing NamedLWLockTrancheArray
Дата
Msg-id CAM103DtJdY7-vNStVM_FEp3D_85pBE1-d2VKKTOAJnDB-P5Kug@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] [BUG FIX] Removing NamedLWLockTrancheArray  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] [BUG FIX] Removing NamedLWLockTrancheArray  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
> You can read about usage of LWLocks in extensions from below location:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/xfunc-c.html#idp86986416  

Thank you for the pointer. I understand that the document describes the only correct way to use LWLock in extensions  and using LWLockRegisterTranche  is a non-standard or prohibit way to do that.

By the way, in the case of orafce, it uses LWLockRegisterTranche  directly but only when !found. So if any backend other than the creator of the shmem want to access tranche, the puch tranche is not found on the process and crashes. I think this is it.
If no other modules is installed, registeriing a tranche even if found will supress the crash but it is not a solution at all.

At least for 9.6 or 10, orafce should do that following the documentation. But it still can crash from the problem by the separate NamedLWLockTrancheArray. (ID range check in LWLockInitialize would be useless if it is not used by extensions)

I'll continue considering this next week

regards,

--- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andrew Borodin
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [GSoC] Personal presentation and request for clarification
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : Parallel Merge Join