Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: [HACKERS] TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", )

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Subject: Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: [HACKERS] TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", )
Date: 2005-10-31 18:00:35
Message-ID: 12634.1130781635@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> If you go for a new state code, rather than a separate
> boolean, does it reduce the size of the patch?

No, and it certainly wouldn't improve my level of confidence in it ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-31 18:01:14 Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-31 17:56:45 Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: [HACKERS] TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-31 18:01:14 Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-31 17:56:45 Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: [HACKERS] TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags