| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum as flags in PGPROC |
| Date: | 2007-10-24 15:55:17 |
| Message-ID: | 3990.1193241317@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I did it that way (i.e. added locking) and then realized that it
>> shouldn't really be a problem, because the only one who can be setting
>> vacuum flags is the process itself. Other processes can only read the
>> flags.
> It would still be a problem if there was any other fields that were
> updated by other processes, adjacent to the vacuum flags. I don't think
> that's the case, however.
Well, that may not be the case today, but it still seems like an
assumption that will come back to bite us someday. And can you imagine
trying to debug a misbehavior like that? It's really not worth the risk,
given how seldom these flags will be changed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-24 15:57:58 | Re: vacuum as flags in PGPROC |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-24 15:41:00 | Re: vacuum as flags in PGPROC |