Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held whencalling PageGetLSN() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jacob Champion
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held whencalling PageGetLSN()
Date
Msg-id CABAq_6HtmvF5KFLD5TWzTEV_RB+Gy5Vc-TzOpD6grawv2Nxwjw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held whencalling PageGetLSN()  (Jacob Champion <pchampion@pivotal.io>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN()  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jacob Champion <pchampion@pivotal.io> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In short, it seems to me that this patch should be rejected in its
>> current shape.
>
> Is the half of the patch that switches PageGetLSN to
> BufferGetLSNAtomic correct, at least?

Any further thoughts on this? If the BufferGetLSNAtomic fixes made
here are not correct to begin with, then the rest of the patch is
probably moot; I just want to double-check that that is the case.

--Jacob


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CREATE COLLATION does not sanitize ICU's BCP 47language tags. Should it?
Next
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Show backtrace when tap tests fail