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). > > > 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.
I think we can say Jim gets his money back if he finds a bug. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
