| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock |
| Date: | 2019-06-14 15:32:53 |
| Message-ID: | 28491.1560526373@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
>> Hm, I don't get that warning. Does this patch silence it, please?
> Uh, no patch attached? But initializing the variable where it's
> declared would certainly silence it.
BTW, after looking around a bit I wonder if this complaint isn't
exposing an actual logic bug. Shouldn't skip_tuple_lock have
a lifetime similar to first_time?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-06-14 15:34:29 | pgsql: Silence compiler warning |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-06-14 15:28:36 | Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-06-14 15:37:36 | Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-06-14 15:28:36 | Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock |