Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum changes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum changes
Date
Msg-id 200806302029.m5UKTmk28172@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum changes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum changes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > Right, but I still need the other part of the check, right? This one
> > still fails the same check as my patch, no? Because I assume the hole
> > you found there was that get_sync_bit() will return 0 for two different
> > sync methods as long as none of them are O_SYNC or O_DSYNC...
> 
> No, my point was that there are three possible states of sync_bit and
> your patch only accounted for transitions between two of 'em.  For
> instance, if sync_bit goes to 0 we must close and reopen the file,
> else we'll be doing both O_SYNC flush and whatever flush method
> is supposed to be getting used.

Did this every get addressed?  I don't see a commit for it.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum changes