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

Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: [HACKERS] TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>,Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Subject: Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: [HACKERS] TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags
Date: 2005-10-31 18:01:58
Message-ID: 200510311801.j9VI1wP10746@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > If you go for a new state code, rather than a separate
> > boolean, does it reduce the size of the patch?
> 
> No, and it certainly wouldn't improve my level of confidence in it ...

Well, then what real options do we have?  It seems the patch is just
required for all branches.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-10-31 18:05:06
Subject: Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)",)
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-10-31 18:01:14
Subject: Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-10-31 18:05:06
Subject: Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)",)
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-10-31 18:01:14
Subject: Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags

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