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

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

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug
Date: 2001-07-04 10:23:22
Message-ID: EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJGEJHENAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikheev, Vadim [mailto:vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM]
> 
> > 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.
> 

OK I would fix it.
As for HeapTupleSatisfies() there seems to be another choise to
let HeapTupleSatisfiesAny() be equivalent to HeapTupleSatisfiesNow()
other than always returning true.

Comments ?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue 

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew McMillanDate: 2001-07-04 11:27:31
Subject: Re: [OT] Any major users of postgresql?
Previous:From: Gunnar RønningDate: 2001-07-04 10:02:21
Subject: Re: [OT] Any major users of postgresql?

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