| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN() |
| Date: | 2017-10-02 16:15:01 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoacRTXwZEmxPFJcBdLJwTK=K2gaDeNaeNsY4bWu+yGXQg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, there are cases where you don't need any locking checks, and the
> proposed patch ignores that.
I understand that, but shouldn't we then look for a way to adjust the
patch so that it doesn't have that issue any longer, rather than just
kicking it to the curb? I mean, just saying "patch suxxor, next"
doesn't seem like the right approach to something that has apparently
already found real problems.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | chenhj | 2017-10-02 16:20:17 | Re: [PATCH]make pg_rewind to not copy useless WAL files |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-02 16:12:58 | Re: Commitfest 201709 is now closed |