On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> It doesn't look particularly dangerous to me. Famous last words. > >> Basically, I think what we're doing right now is holding the buffer >> mapping lock so that the buffer can't be renamed under us while we're >> pinning it. > > What I'm afraid of is that there's hidden assumptions about the > consistency provided by the mapping locks.
That's certainly worth checking for, but I think the only code that needs to be checked is the code that would formerly have run while holding said lock. And there isn't that much of that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
