| From: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN() |
| Date: | 2017-09-19 22:29:14 |
| Message-ID: | CABAq_6HtmvF5KFLD5TWzTEV_RB+Gy5Vc-TzOpD6grawv2Nxwjw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | chiru r | 2017-09-19 22:32:09 | Re: [HACKERS] USER Profiles for PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2017-09-19 22:23:10 | Re: CREATE COLLATION does not sanitize ICU's BCP 47 language tags. Should it? |