| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: missing LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE) in trigger.c GetTupleForTrigger? |
| Date: | 2012-11-30 12:57:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20121130125746.GD3957@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2012-11-30 12:50:06 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 30 November 2012 11:58, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > We only get the pin right there, I don't see any preexisting pin.
>
> Seems easy enough to test with an Assert patch.
>
> If the Assert doesn't fail, we apply it as "documentation" of the
> requirement for a pin.
>
> If it fails, we fix the bug.
I think its wrong even if we were holding a pin all the time due the the
aforementioned PageAddItem reshuffling of line pointers. So that Assert
wouldn't proof enough.
I can try to proof corruption there, but I would rather see somebody
coming along telling me why its safe and that I am dumb for not
realizing it.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-30 12:59:15 | Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-11-30 12:57:20 | Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker |