Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group