> I'm inclined to think that that is the correct solution and the new
> approach is simply broken.  But, not knowing what Vadim had in mind
> while making this change, I'm going to leave it to him to fix this.

Thanks, Tom! I'll take care about this...

> Although this specific lockup mode didn't exist in 7.0.*, it does
> suggest a possible cause of the deadlocks-with-no-deadlock-report
> behavior that a couple of people have reported with 7.0: maybe there
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> is another logic path that allows a deadlock involving two 
> buffer locks, or a buffer lock and a normal lock.  I'm on the
> warpath now ...

Buffer locks were implemented in 6.5.

Vadim

Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:55:36 -0700
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
RE: Silent deadlock possible in current sources
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes:
>> Although this specific lockup mode didn't exist in 7.0.*, it does
>> suggest a possible cause of the deadlocks-with-no-deadlock-report
>> behavior that a couple of people have reported with 7.0: maybe there
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> is another logic path that allows a deadlock involving two 
>> buffer locks, or a buffer lock and a normal lock.  I'm on the
>> warpath now ...

> Buffer locks were implemented in 6.5.

Yeah, but we've only heard about silent deadlocks from people running
7.0.  I'm speculating that some "unrelated" 7.0 change is interacting
badly with the buffer lock management.  Haven't gone digging yet, but
I will.

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:23:27 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Silent deadlock possible in current sources 