Re: BUG #5952: SetRWConflict assertion failure

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> This patch looks reasonable, but I'm a bit concerned about the
>> chunk immediately preceding the patched area.
>>
>> When we do this:
>>
>>     LWLockRelease(SerializableXactHashLock);
>>     LWLockRelease(partitionLock);
>>     LWLockRelease(SerializablePredicateLockListLock);
>>     LWLockAcquire(partitionLock, LW_SHARED);
>>     LWLockAcquire(SerializableXactHashLock, LW_SHARED);
>>
>> Don't we need to also reset nextpredlock to the head of the list?
>> I'm assuming it's the partitionLock that's keeping the
>> PREDICATELOCKs from bouncing out from under us, so if we release
>> it, aren't we potentially point off into thin air?
>
> I think you are right.  That sequence should be followed by a copy
> of the same "nextpredlock = " statement that's just above.  Do you
> want me to revise the patch or do you just want to take care of it
> as part of the commit?
>
> Thanks for catching that.

If you could send a revised patch, that would be great. I don't want
to muck it up by accident.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company