Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 8.3.5: Crash in CountActiveBackends() - lockless race?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.3.5: Crash in CountActiveBackends() - lockless race?
Date: 2009-03-30 14:51:24
Message-ID: 10088.1238424684@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Well, that was also my theory.  But my point is that such lockless code
> should be written in more stricter way so it's effects can be clearly
> deduced.

We don't really care that much, for what CountActiveBackends is used for.

>  Or at least such roundabout effects should be commented -
> "Ancient pointer here would still point to PGPROC struct".

Agreed, the comment should mention all of these possibilities.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-03-30 14:52:47
Subject: Re: psql \d* and system objects
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-03-30 14:43:01
Subject: Re: psql \d* and system objects

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group