Re: possible dsm bug in dsm_attach()

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 17:46:45
Message-ID: 20140506174645.GB2583@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-05-06 13:45:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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.

Heh. Not a fan of film references? :)

Thanks,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-05-06 17:47:34 Re: pg_stat_statements: Query normalisation may fail during stats reset
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-05-06 17:45:13 Re: possible dsm bug in dsm_attach()