Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> 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
>> 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.
> Well, that may not be the case today, but it still seems like an
> assumption that will come back to bite us someday. And can you imagine
> trying to debug a misbehavior like that? It's really not worth the risk,
> given how seldom these flags will be changed.
Oh, I totally agree. I wasn't trying to argue to the contrary.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-10-24 17:01:32|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-10-24 15:55:17|
|Subject: Re: vacuum as flags in PGPROC |