Re: possible dsm bug in dsm_attach()

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: possible dsm bug in dsm_attach()
Date: 2014-05-06 17:45:13
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZniszcj5OMsY7e55qC_EoLvwoTOML4qei3zX28wKPnKQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-05-06 08:48:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > The break because of refcnt == 1 doesn't generally seem to be a good
>> > idea. Why are we bailing if there's *any* segment that's in the process
>> > of being removed? I think the check should be there *after* the
>> > dsm_control->item[i].handle == seg->handle check?
>>
>> You are correct. Good catch.
>
> Fix attached.

Committed, thanks.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-05-06 17:46:45 Re: possible dsm bug in dsm_attach()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-05-06 17:19:19 Release schedule for PG 9.4beta1