Re: Segmentation fault on proc exit after dshash_find_or_insert - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: Segmentation fault on proc exit after dshash_find_or_insert
Date
Msg-id CA+HiwqG7uO2+c0AV8CWt7qG1izzN3PjdKDtgMqK9a0tiNvzHnw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Segmentation fault on proc exit after dshash_find_or_insert  (Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>)
Responses Re: Segmentation fault on proc exit after dshash_find_or_insert
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Alvaro,

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 6:36 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote
> On 2025-Dec-18, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > Thanks.  Updated the commit message too to be more accurate in the
> > attached updated patch.
>
> Looks good to me.

Thanks for looking.

> I would add an Assert(num_held_lwlocks == 0) at the
> end of LWLockReleaseAll(), to make it clear that it's idempotent (which
> is important for the case where ProcKill will call it again shortly
> after).

Makes sense.  Will do.

> Are you going to push this soon?

Yes, I will try tomorrow.

> Looking at ProcKill, I notice that we do some LWLock ops after its
> LWLockReleaseAll() call, which seems a bit silly.  Why not do that right
> after the "if (MyProc->lockGroupLeader != NULL)" block instead?  Nothing
> uses LWLocks from there on.  This can be a separate commit.

Just to confirm: you're suggesting moving the LWLockReleaseAll() call
to after the "if (MyProc->lockGroupLeader != NULL)" block? Makes sense
-- odd to release all locks right before then going ahead and
acquiring one. Agreed it should be a separate commit.

--
Thanks, Amit Langote



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Enhancing Memory Context Statistics Reporting
Next
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes)