On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 1:59 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 12:00 AM Andrey Borodin <x4...@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > > > On 10 Sep 2025, at 15:25, Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I believe we need some > > > general solution. We might have a special kind of condition variable, > > > a critical section condition variable, where both waiting and > > > signaling must be invoked only in a critical section. However, I dig > > > into our Latch and WaitEventSet, it seems there are too many > > > assumptions about postmaster death. So, a critical section condition > > > variable probably should be implemented on top of semaphore. Any > > > thoughts? > > > > We want Latch\WaitEventSet, but for critical section. Is it easier to > > implement from scratch (from semaphores), or is it easier to fix and > > maintain existing Latch\WaitEventSet? > > FWIW I'm working on a patch set that kills all backends without > releasing any locks when the postmaster exists. Then CVs and other > latch-based stuff should be safe in this context. Work was > interrupted by a vacation but I hope to post something in the nexts > couple of days, over on that other thread I started...
Thank you! I'm looking forward to see it! ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
