Re: [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Date
Msg-id 23090.1248667139@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> I looked at that and decided it was OK as-is.  How do you want to
>> change it?

> The reason that it doesn't need locks is not that there's no other
> process running, but that it was already initialized, in the case when
> found is false.

Mph.  The comment is correct, I think, but it applies to the situation
after we pass the !found test, rather than where the comment is.  Maybe
we should just move it down one statement?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Multicore builds on MSVC