Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum changes

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum changes
Date: 2008-06-30 20:29:48
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > Right, but I still need the other part of the check, right? This one
> > still fails the same check as my patch, no? Because I assume the hole
> > you found there was that get_sync_bit() will return 0 for two different
> > sync methods as long as none of them are O_SYNC or O_DSYNC...
> No, my point was that there are three possible states of sync_bit and
> your patch only accounted for transitions between two of 'em. For
> instance, if sync_bit goes to 0 we must close and reopen the file,
> else we'll be doing both O_SYNC flush and whatever flush method
> is supposed to be getting used.

Did this every get addressed? I don't see a commit for it.

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-06-30 20:34:16 Re: [HACKERS] get_relation_stats_hook()
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2008-06-30 20:27:41 Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?