| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in _hash_kill_items/MarkBufferDirtyHint |
| Date: | 2017-04-01 00:30:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobwMxZdJo-9VwT9oz0oR-vzJQnQ3F5mOKQHrLoCOfm2WA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, That is another option but the main idea was to be inline with
> the btree code.
That's not a bad goal in principal, but _bt_killitems() doesn't have
any similar argument.
(Also, speaking of consistency, why did we end up with
_hash_kill_items, with an underscore between kill and items, and
_bt_killitems, without one?)
> Moreover, I am not sure if acquiring lwlock inside
> hashendscan (basically the place where we are trying to close down the
> things) would look good.
Well, if that's not a good thing to do, hiding it inside some other
function doesn't make it better. I think it's fine, though.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-04-01 00:32:41 | Re: logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-04-01 00:25:54 | Re: Somebody has not thought through subscription locking considerations |