Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZTwNKkeCN+n_ew2eLFrWT9+UcPRLUTyy_xWN12QzGORsA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> Actually, isn't that another bug? The fact that we don't do the same
> from within gc_qtexts() in normal cases, even with an exclusive lock
> held? We do this:

Ah, no. We check pgss->gc_count in any case, so it should be fine.
That will also make it safe to do the unlink() as outlined already,
because a new qtext_load_file() call from
pg_stat_statements_internal() (due to gc_count bump) will allocate the
file again by name.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements