From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Date: | 2016-06-15 14:48:12 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYNWoKhx-+fDJkWAZ_u76+Uir1GUnGw7_-7jjfz34ELYw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what to do about this: this part of the heap_update()
>> logic has been like this forever, and I assume that if it were easy to
>> refactor this away, somebody would have done it by now.
>
> How about changing collect_corrupt_items to acquire
> AccessExclusiveLock for safely checking?
Well, that would make it a lot less likely for
pg_check_{visible,frozen} to detect the bug in heap_update(), but it
wouldn't fix the bug in heap_update().
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-15 14:50:40 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2016-06-15 14:11:39 | Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions |