Greetings, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > no one can entirely quibble with the rationale that this is ok (I'll > > post a patch cleaning up the atomics simulation of flags in a bit), but > > this is certainly not a correct locking strategy. > > I think we have enough evidence at this point to conclude that this > patch, along with MERGE, should be reverted.
I'm not sure that I see some issues around getting the locking correct when starting/stopping the process is really evidence of a major problem with the patch- yes, it obviously needs to be fixed and it would have been unfortuante if we hadn't caught it, but a good bit of effort appears to have been taken to ensure that exactly this is tested (which is in part why the buildfarm is failing) and this evidently found an existing bug, which is hardly this patch's fault. In short, I don't agree (yet..) that this needs reverting. I'm quite sure that bringing up MERGE in this thread and saying it needs to be reverted without even having the committer of that feature on the CC list isn't terribly useful and conflates two otherwise unrelated patches and efforts. Let's try to use the threads the way they're intended and keep our responses to each on their respective threads. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
