| From: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Asim Praveen <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN() |
| Date: | 2017-11-07 22:21:56 |
| Message-ID: | CABAq_6Fii3b8-Wizq-C=wOw=2q_Xy+2U59Kp-NUZ7_JHUfdb3w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that 0001 is good for a committer lookup, that will get
>> rid of all existing bugs. For 0002, what you are proposing is still
>> not a good idea for anything using page copies.
>
> I think there is still significant confusion here. To be clear: this
> patch is intended to add no changes for local page copies.
Maybe a better way to put this is: we see no failures with the
pageinspect regression tests, which exercise PageGetLSN() via the
page_header() function. Are there other tests we should be paying
attention to that might show a problem with our local-copy logic?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-07 22:36:40 | Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-11-07 22:11:07 | Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples |