Re: Another bug introduced by fastpath patch

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Another bug introduced by fastpath patch
Date: 2013-11-27 22:51:43
Message-ID: 20131127225143.GB2592@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-11-27 17:25:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Or we
> could add a restriction to EligibleForRelationFastPath that restricts
> the fast-path mechanism to non-session locks, in which case we'd not
> need to make the zeroing contingent on allLocks either. I don't think
> we take any fast-path-eligible locks in session mode anyway, so this
> wouldn't be giving up any functionality on that end.

That seems like the best thing to do to me.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-11-27 22:57:50 Re: MultiXact pessmization in 9.3
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2013-11-27 22:48:55 Re: [RFC] overflow checks optimized away