Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2024-01-18 14:00:58 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> > The LockBufHdr also used init_local_spin_delay / perform_spin_delay >> > infrastruce and then it has the same issue like ${subject}, it is pretty >> > like the code in s_lock; Based on my current knowledge, I think we >> > should add the check there. >> >> I'd like to hear from Andres, if possible. @Andres: Should these >> sanity checks apply only to spin locks per se, or also to buffer >> header locks? > > They also should apply to buffer header locks. The exact same dangers apply > there. The only reason this isn't using a plain spinlock is that this way we > can modify more state with a single atomic operation. But all the dangers of > using spinlocks apply just as well. Thanks for speaking on this! -- Best Regards Andy Fan