Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Basically, you can't make any critical changes to a shared buffer
> > if you haven't got exclusive lock on it. But that's exactly what
> > this patch is assuming it can do.
>
> It seems to me that the only possible way to close this hole is to
> acquire an exclusive lock before calling FlushBuffers, not shared.
> This lock would be held until the flag has been examined and reset; the
> actual WAL record and write would continue with a shared lock, as now.
We don't seem to have an API for reducing LWLock strength though ...
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
