Re: BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, alr(dot)nospamforme(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Date: 2009-07-27 03:58:59
Message-ID: 23090.1248667139@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane escribi:
>> I looked at that and decided it was OK as-is. How do you want to
>> change it?

> The reason that it doesn't need locks is not that there's no other
> process running, but that it was already initialized, in the case when
> found is false.

Mph. The comment is correct, I think, but it applies to the situation
after we pass the !found test, rather than where the comment is. Maybe
we should just move it down one statement?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2009-07-27 04:47:29 Re: Postgresql, ts_headline() adds space when parsing url problem
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-07-27 03:48:58 Re: BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2009-07-27 07:11:32 Re: Multicore builds on MSVC
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-07-27 03:48:58 Re: BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash