From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: _hash_addovflpage has a bug |
Date: | 2017-01-10 13:37:56 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY=hZb9jBpH8HByiNqdALNQoODYypc=NU095xMck5-=qw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, we can write code that way, but then it is better to rely just
> on retain_pin variable in the function and add an Assert for bucket
> page whenever we are retaining pin. How about doing something like
> attached patch?
Committed.
>> Not sure exactly how that
>> works out in terms of locking.
>
> We have to change the locking order as mentioned above by me. This
> change is already present in that patch, so maybe we add the check as
> suggested by you along with that patch. Now, another thing we could
> do is to extract those changes from WAL patch, but I am not sure if it
> is worth the effort.
I'm not sure at this point, either.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2017-01-10 13:40:08 | Re: Microvacuum support for Hash Index |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-10 13:26:11 | Re: merging some features from plpgsql2 project |