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

RE: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug
Date: 2001-07-03 17:41:53
Message-ID: 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166A9@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> On further thought, btbuild is not that badly broken at the moment,
> because CREATE INDEX acquires ShareLock on the relation, so
> there can be no concurrent writers at the page level. Still, it
> seems like it'd be a good idea to do "LockBuffer(buffer,
BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE)"
> here, and probably also to invoke HeapTupleSatisfiesNow() via the
> HeapTupleSatisfies() macro so that infomask update is checked for.
> Vadim, what do you think?

Looks like there is no drawback in locking buffer so let's lock it.

Vadim

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joe BrennerDate: 2001-07-03 17:44:04
Subject: [OT] Any major users of postgresql?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-03 17:34:08
Subject: Re: selecting from cursor

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