From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, "''Merlin Moncure' '" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, "'pgsql-hackers-win32 '" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: What's left? |
Date: | 2004-01-27 01:26:23 |
Message-ID: | 7829.1075166783@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> In this way, no one ever has the rename file open while we are holding
> the locks, and we can loop without holding an exclusive lock on
> pg_shadow, and file writes remain in order.
You're doing this where exactly, and are certain that you are holding no
locks why exactly? And if you aren't holding a lock, what prevents
concurrency bugs?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-27 01:51:12 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] What's left? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-27 01:23:08 | Re: What's left? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-27 01:51:12 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] What's left? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-27 01:23:08 | Re: What's left? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-27 01:51:12 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] What's left? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-27 01:23:08 | Re: What's left? |