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

Re: BUG #1502: hash_seq_search might return removed entry

From: Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #1502: hash_seq_search might return removed entry
Date: 2005-02-27 17:06:03
Message-ID: thhal-0fpb9AkUNxycEfTL8c+al9q2zmIUknD@mailblocks.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Tom Lane wrote:

>Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com> writes:
>  
>
>>Would such a patch be accepted?
>>    
>>
>
>Seems like a brute-force solution.  I'd look first at whether
>AtCommit_Portals could just restart its hashtable scan after
>each deletion; if that seems too inefficient, modify the hash
>table entries themselves to carry a "portal already deleted"
>flag.
>  
>
Yes, a static flag indicating that a deletion has occured will work fine 
since all portals that has not been perused but not dropped now has an 
InvalidSubTransactionId. I'll do it that way then.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren



In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: ZOUARI FouratDate: 2005-02-27 19:14:50
Subject: BUG #1511: RPM install, PHP5
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-02-27 16:49:34
Subject: Re: BUG #1510: Indexes on boolean fields

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