Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum changes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum changes
Date: 2008-05-13 14:10:16
Message-ID: 24537.1210687816@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Tolley 2008-05-13 14:19:42 Re: Problem returning strings with pgsql 8.3.x
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-05-13 14:01:52 Re: Problem returning strings with pgsql 8.3.x