RE: Beta 6 Regression results on Redat 7.0.

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Lamar Owen'" <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: Beta 6 Regression results on Redat 7.0.
Date: 2001-03-20 23:25:24
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3339@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I'm rerunning to see if it is intermittent. Second run -- no
> error. Running a third time......no error. Now I'm confused.
> What would cause such an error, Tom? I'm going to check on my

Hmm, concurrent checkpoint? Probably we could simplify dirty test
in ByfferSync() - ie test bufHdr->cntxDirty without holding
shlock (and pin!) on buffer: should be good as long as we set
cntxDirty flag *before* XLogInsert in access methods. Have to
look more...

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 2001-03-20 23:34:00 Re: Beta 6 Regression results on Redat 7.0.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-20 23:22:42 Re: Beta 6 Regression results on Redat 7.0.