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

From: Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN()
Date: 2017-09-19 22:29:14
Message-ID: CABAq_6HtmvF5KFLD5TWzTEV_RB+Gy5Vc-TzOpD6grawv2Nxwjw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> In short, it seems to me that this patch should be rejected in its
>> current shape.
>
> Is the half of the patch that switches PageGetLSN to
> BufferGetLSNAtomic correct, at least?

Any further thoughts on this? If the BufferGetLSNAtomic fixes made
here are not correct to begin with, then the rest of the patch is
probably moot; I just want to double-check that that is the case.

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message chiru r 2017-09-19 22:32:09 Re: [HACKERS] USER Profiles for PostgreSQL
Previous Message Andreas Karlsson 2017-09-19 22:23:10 Re: CREATE COLLATION does not sanitize ICU's BCP 47 language tags. Should it?