Re: some review comments on logical rep code

At Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:43:17 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in <20170419(dot)174317(dot)114509231(dot)horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
> At Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:33:29 +0200, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <ed73a706-9e15-f137-2d55-f05361f2de9a(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> > > Commit has been moved from after to before of the lock section.
> > > This causes potential race condition. (As the same as the
> > > potential dead-lock, I'm not sure it can cause realistic problem,
> > > though..) Isn't it better to be after the lock section?
> > >
> >
> > We just read catalogs so there should not be locking issues.
>
> Some other process may modify it then go to there. With a kind of
> priority inversion, the process may modify the data on the memory
> *before* we modify it. Of course this is rather unrealistic,
> though.

A bit short.

Some other process may modify it *after* we read it then go to
there. With a kind of priority inversion, the process may modify
the data on the memory *before* we modify it. Of course this is
rather unrealistic, though.

regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center