On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 01:05:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 06:17:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> This won't do as a permanent patch, because it isn't guaranteed to fix > >> the problem on machines that don't strongly order writes, but it should > >> work on Opterons, at least well enough to confirm the diagnosis. > > > Given your proposed fix on -patches, do you still need me to test this? > > Yes; we still need to verify that my theory actually explains your > problem. Given that I'm positing that you can repeatedly hit a > two-instruction window, this is by no means a sure thing. We need > it tested (and with asserts on, so that we can tell if it's fixed > the problem or not).
Ok, I'll work on getting this tested. Just to clarify, if this fixes it then the problem wouldn't occur, or would we just see a different assert? > > Also, is there any heap corruption risk associated with this patch? > > Look, Jim, I'm trying to help you fix this. Are you going to help or not? > If you want some kind of written guarantee, you're not going to get one. Of course not, and I'm not looking for one. On the otherhand, I don't want to recommend something on a production system without understanding what kind of risks are involved, and unfortunately much of this is still over my head. I would really like to have a better idea of what the impact of this bug is. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
