From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: vacuum as flags in PGPROC |
Date: | 2007-10-24 15:41:00 |
Message-ID: | 20071024154100.GH6559@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I did it that way (i.e. added locking) and then realized that it
> > shouldn't really be a problem, because the only one who can be setting
> > vacuum flags is the process itself. Other processes can only read the
> > flags.
>
> It would still be a problem if there was any other fields that were
> updated by other processes, adjacent to the vacuum flags. I don't think
> that's the case, however.
Yeah, that's not the case currently. Tom is right in that it's fragile
if we ever change the definition so that there is such a flag. Maybe
this is solved by adding a comment however.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/5ZYLFMCVHXC
Jude: I wish humans laid eggs
Ringlord: Why would you want humans to lay eggs?
Jude: So I can eat them
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-24 15:55:17 | Re: vacuum as flags in PGPROC |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-24 15:30:37 | Re: vacuum as flags in PGPROC |