"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > I noticed that shmem.c holds ShmemIndexLock considerably longer than any > other spinlock is held, and across operations that could theoretically > fail (hashtable manipulations). This doesn't matter a lot in the Unix > code because only the postmaster ever executes ShmemInitStruct, but > in the Windows port we run that code every time a backend is launched. > I think that we could convert that spinlock to an LWLock. Will look into > it. >
Yeah, use LWLock is a safer way in order to recover to unlock status. Regards, Qingqing ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly