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 18:27:54
Message-ID: 16200.1130783274@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:
> To me a performance problem is much harder get reports on and to locate
> than a real fix to the problem. I think if a few people eyeball the
> patch, it is OK for application. Are backpatches significantly
> different?

Well, the logic is the same all the way back, but the code has changed
textually quite a bit since 7.4 and even more since 7.3. I think the
patch would apply reasonably cleanly to 8.0, but adjusting it for 7.x
will take a bit of work, which would mean those versions would probably
need to be reviewed separately.

One possible compromise is to use this patch in 8.x and a simpler patch
in 7.x --- people who are very concerned about performance ought to be
running 8.x anyway ;-)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-31 18:34:17 Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-10-31 18:23:20 Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-31 18:34:17 Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-10-31 18:23:20 Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags