Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a trivial fix of locking issue in pgstattuple().
Hmm, is this really a bug, and if so how far back does it go?
I'm thinking that having a pin on the buffer should be enough to
call PageGetHeapFreeSpace.
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a trivial fix of locking issue in pgstattuple().
Hmm, is this really a bug, and if so how far back does it go?
I'm thinking that having a pin on the buffer should be enough to
call
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a trivial fix of locking issue in pgstattuple().
Hmm, is this really a bug, and if so how far back does it go?
I'm thinking that having a pin on the buffer
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thinking that having a pin on the buffer should be enough to
call PageGetHeapFreeSpace.
Hmm... we might use pd_upper and pd_lower at different times,
No I think the original patch
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On second thought, we do call PageGetHeapFreeSpace without holding a
lock in heap_page_prune_opt as well, so it better be safe. Looking
closer at PageGetHeapFreeSpace, I think it is. The
return value can be bogus, of course.
That's worth noting in
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a trivial fix of locking issue in pgstattuple().
Hmm, is this really a bug, and if so how far back does it go?
I'm thinking that having a pin on the buffer should be enough to
call PageGetHeapFreeSpace.
regards, tom lane
