RE: ? potential bug in LockBuffer ?

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Mauricio Breternitz'" <mbjsql(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: RE: ? potential bug in LockBuffer ?
Date: 2001-05-22 20:57:14
Message-ID: 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E32016647@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> (buf->r_locks)--;
> if (!buf->r_locks)
> *buflock &= ~BL_R_LOCK;
>
>
> Or I am missing something...

buflock is per-backend flag, it's not in shmem. Backend is
allowed only single lock per buffer.

Vadim

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2001-05-22 21:33:38 RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Previous Message Mauricio Breternitz 2001-05-22 20:40:16 ? potential bug in LockBuffer ?