I wrote:
> I think that it would work for BufferAlloc to share-lock the victim
> buffer before calling FlushBuffer; we'd have to add a bool parameter to
> FlushBuffer telling it the lock was already acquired.
I've applied a patch for this.
> BTW, it looks to me like this deadlock potential has existed at least
> since 7.0. I seem to recall one or two reports of unexplainable
> apparent deadlocks, which perhaps are now explained.
On closer investigation the deadlock does not seem to exist in 7.4 and
before, because BufferReplace didn't acquire the buffer sharelock.
(There is a comment in the 7.4 code claiming that we didn't need to,
but I'm unconvinced that it's correct...)
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
