| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: possible dsm bug in dsm_attach() |
| Date: | 2014-05-06 17:14:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20140506171418.GA2583@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-06 08:48:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > The break because of refcnt == 1 doesn't generally seem to be a good
> > idea. Why are we bailing if there's *any* segment that's in the process
> > of being removed? I think the check should be there *after* the
> > dsm_control->item[i].handle == seg->handle check?
>
> You are correct. Good catch.
Fix attached.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Don-t-bail-in-dsm_attach-if-any-any-other-segment-is.patch | text/x-patch | 1.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-06 17:19:19 | Release schedule for PG 9.4beta1 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-05-06 17:08:01 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |