Re: bug in fast-path locking

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Cousin Marc <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: bug in fast-path locking
Date: 2012-04-10 06:02:02
Message-ID: 1334037722.12070.14.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 22:47 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> but other similar paths do:
>
> if (!proclock)
> {
> AbortStrongLockAcquire();
>
> I don't think it's necessary outside of LockErrorCleanup(), right?

I take that back, it's necessary for the dontwait case, too.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Atri Sharma 2012-04-10 06:02:55 Re: Regarding GSoc proposal
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2012-04-10 05:47:36 Re: bug in fast-path locking