| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com" <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList() |
| Date: | 2021-11-01 16:00:54 |
| Message-ID: | 8D394A05-1B89-42DD-96F3-BCF41016EEC7@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/31/21, 12:39 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeah, there's no expectation that this data structure needs to be kept
> consistent after an error; and I'm not real sure that the existing
> code could claim to satisfy such a requirement if we did need it.
> (There's at least a short window where the caller's hash table entry
> will point at an already-freed List.)
Right.
> Pushed the patch as given. I've not yet reviewed other list_delete_first
> callers, but I'll take a look. (I seem to remember that I did survey
> them while writing 1cff1b95a, but I evidently missed that this code
> could be dealing with a list long enough to be problematic.)
Thanks!
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-11-01 16:10:17 | Re: Fix C4819 warning in MSVC |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-01 15:58:35 | Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList() |