Jaime Casanova írta:
> 2010/1/13 Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>:
>> Tom Lane írta:
>>> If this patch is touching those parts of relcache.c, it probably needs
>> What I did there is to check the return value of LockRelationOid()
> the hunk was because a diference in the position (i guess patch accept
> a hunk of reasonable size, assuming there is something like a
> reasonable size for that)
> and is not touching the same as your refactor (sorry if i explain myself bad)
>> and also elog(PANIC) if the lock wasn't available.
>> Does it need rethinking?
> well, i actually think that PANIC is too high for this...
Well, it tries to lock and then open a critical system index.
Failure to open it has PANIC, it seemed appropriate to use
the same error level if the lock failure case.
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Zdenek Kotala||Date: 2010-01-13 10:11:27|
|Subject: Deadlock in vacuum (check fails)|
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2010-01-13 08:47:48|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O|