| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum breakage from a734fd5d1 |
| Date: | 2016-11-28 01:02:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYgmTcKY6NSDCq=z2Qg6ds1oVTJQNMfFu8fY6b+cajoLw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So the problem seems to be confirmed to exist, but be of low probability
> and low consequences, in back branches. I think we only need to fix it in
> HEAD. The lock acquisition and status recheck that I proposed before
> should be sufficient.
Thanks for digging into this. I failed to notice while reviewing that
the way we were printing the message had changed a bit in the new
code, and I just totally overlooked the existing locking hazards.
Oops.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2016-11-28 01:26:31 | Re: UNDO and in-place update |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-11-28 00:05:49 | Re: Physical append-only tables |