Re: [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN()

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io>, 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 16:15:01
Message-ID: CA+TgmoacRTXwZEmxPFJcBdLJwTK=K2gaDeNaeNsY4bWu+yGXQg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, there are cases where you don't need any locking checks, and the
> proposed patch ignores that.

I understand that, but shouldn't we then look for a way to adjust the
patch so that it doesn't have that issue any longer, rather than just
kicking it to the curb? I mean, just saying "patch suxxor, next"
doesn't seem like the right approach to something that has apparently
already found real problems.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message chenhj 2017-10-02 16:20:17 Re: [PATCH]make pg_rewind to not copy useless WAL files
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-10-02 16:12:58 Re: Commitfest 201709 is now closed