Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. The message is printed
>> by the backend that is waiting for (or just obtained) a lock, dependent
>> on its own local setting of log_lock_waits, and not dependent on who
>> woke it up.
> But in your version of the patch you're not calling PGSemaphoreUnlock() unless
> log_lock_waits is set in the process doing the waking.
Which is always the same process:
PGSemaphoreUnlock(&MyProc->sem);
>> BTW, I just noticed that GUC allows deadlock_timeout to be set all the
>> way down to zero. This seems bad --- surely the minimum value should at
>> least be positive? As CVS HEAD stands, you're likely to get a lot of
>> spurious/useless log messages if you have log_lock_waits = true and
>> deadlock_timeout = 0. Do we care?
> Does that actually work? I would expect setitimer to turn off the alarm in
> that case.
Good point, which renders it definitely broken. I propose we just tweak
GUC to set a minimum deadlock_timeout of 1 msec.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
