Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On 21.02.2012 13:19, Fujii Masao wrote: >> In some places, the spinlock "insertpos_lck" is taken while another >> spinlock "info_lck" is being held. Is this OK? What if unfortunately >> inner spinlock takes long to be taken?
> Hmm, that's only done at a checkpoint (and a restartpoint), so I doubt > that's a big issue in practice. We had the same pattern before the > patch, just with WALInsertLock instead of insertpos_lck. Holding a > spinlock longer is much worse than holding a lwlock longer, but > nevertheless I don't think that's a problem. No, that's NOT okay. A spinlock is only supposed to be held across a short straight-line sequence of instructions. Something that could involve a spin loop, or worse a sleep() kernel call, is right out. Please change this. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers