| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN() |
| Date: | 2017-10-02 09:53:16 |
| Message-ID: | 54864083-16D3-4D65-851C-43C26830BA21@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 20 Sep 2017, at 00:29, Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> In short, it seems to me that this patch should be rejected in its
>>> current shape.
>>
>> Is the half of the patch that switches PageGetLSN to
>> BufferGetLSNAtomic correct, at least?
>
> Any further thoughts on this? If the BufferGetLSNAtomic fixes made
> here are not correct to begin with, then the rest of the patch is
> probably moot; I just want to double-check that that is the case.
Based on the discussions in this thread, I’m marking this patch Returned with
feedback. Please re-submit a new version in an upcoming commitfest when ready.
cheers ./daniel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2017-10-02 09:58:53 | Re: Making clausesel.c Smarter |
| Previous Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2017-10-02 09:46:15 | Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types |