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

Re: BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, alr(dot)nospamforme(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Date: 2009-07-27 03:58:59
Message-ID: 23090.1248667139@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane escribi:
>> I looked at that and decided it was OK as-is.  How do you want to
>> change it?

> The reason that it doesn't need locks is not that there's no other
> process running, but that it was already initialized, in the case when
> found is false.

Mph.  The comment is correct, I think, but it applies to the situation
after we pass the !found test, rather than where the comment is.  Maybe
we should just move it down one statement?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2009-07-27 07:11:32
Subject: Re: Multicore builds on MSVC
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-07-27 03:48:58
Subject: Re: BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2009-07-27 04:47:29
Subject: Re: Postgresql, ts_headline() adds space when parsing url problem
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-07-27 03:48:58
Subject: Re: BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash

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