Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I did it that way (i.e. added locking) and then realized that it
> > shouldn't really be a problem, because the only one who can be setting
> > vacuum flags is the process itself. Other processes can only read the
> > flags.
> It would still be a problem if there was any other fields that were
> updated by other processes, adjacent to the vacuum flags. I don't think
> that's the case, however.
Yeah, that's not the case currently. Tom is right in that it's fragile
if we ever change the definition so that there is such a flag. Maybe
this is solved by adding a comment however.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/5ZYLFMCVHXC
Jude: I wish humans laid eggs
Ringlord: Why would you want humans to lay eggs?
Jude: So I can eat them
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-10-24 15:55:17|
|Subject: Re: vacuum as flags in PGPROC |
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2007-10-24 15:30:37|
|Subject: Re: vacuum as flags in PGPROC|