On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> A lock was already held in BackendPidGetProc(). Is it also
> needless? If so, we should use BackendPidGetProcWithLock() instad
> (the name seems a bit confusing, though).

Oh, that's really sad.  No, that lock is definitely needed.  We should
probably try to figure out some day if there is a way to make this
completely lockless, but that'll have to be 9.7 material or later.

> What I did in the patch was just extending the lock duration
> until reading the pointer proc. I didn't added any additional
> lock.

Sorry, I didn't realize that.  Good point.

>> >  The
>> > only thing we need to do is to prevent the value from being read
>> > twice, and we already have precedent for how to prevent that in
>> > freelist.c.
> However, I don't have objections for the patch applied.

OK, let's leave it like that for now, then.

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:

Reply via email to