I wrote:
OK, I think I see it. The problem is that the code in slru.c is careful
about not modifying state when it doesn't hold the proper lock, but not
so careful about not *inspecting* state without the proper lock.
...
I'm still thinking about how to make a real fix without introducing
Good analysis. I guess the question is what patch would we put into a
subrelease? If you go for a new state code, rather than a separate
boolean, does it reduce the size of the patch?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
OK, I
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
If you go for a new state code, rather than a separate
boolean, does it reduce the size of the patch?
No, and it certainly wouldn't improve my level of confidence in it ...
regards, tom lane
---(end
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
If you go for a new state code, rather than a separate
boolean, does it reduce the size of the patch?
No, and it certainly wouldn't improve my level of confidence in it ...
Well, then what real options do we have? It seems the
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Well, then what real options do we have? It seems the patch is just
required for all branches.
I think it would be possible to fix it in a less invasive way by taking
and releasing the ControlLock an extra time in SimpleLruReadPage and
I have applied a more limited patch that mentions this. I do not want
to mention _why_ we do not implement it because it is partly performance
and partly complexity, I think, and some combinations make no sense,
like temporary primary and non-temp foreign.
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Well, then what real options do we have? It seems the patch is just
required for all branches.
I think it would be possible to fix it in a less invasive way by taking
and releasing the ControlLock an extra time in
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
To me a performance problem is much harder get reports on and to locate
than a real fix to the problem. I think if a few people eyeball the
patch, it is OK for application. Are backpatches significantly
different?
Well, the logic is the same all
I wrote:
I think it would be possible to fix it in a less invasive way by taking
and releasing the ControlLock an extra time in SimpleLruReadPage and
SimpleLruWritePage. What's indeterminate about that is the performance
cost.
Attached is an alternative patch that does it this way. I
OK, this is the way to fix for 8.0 and earlier. It is up to you about
8.1. I think we can handle the larger patch if we do another RC.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
I think it would be possible to fix it in a less
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
OK, this is the way to fix for 8.0 and earlier. It is up to you about
8.1. I think we can handle the larger patch if we do another RC.
Well, I'd like not to do another RC, so I'll hold the larger patch for
8.2.
We still need a test to confirm it
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 02:46 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
I've been working on some docs for Constraining Exclusion Partitioning
for some time now. Deadlines seem to be looming, or may even have
passed, so it seems sensible to submit what I have now.
Many thanks to Josh Berkus for providing the
On Mon, 2005-31-10 at 22:41 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
I believe this is now complete and ready for application.
The changes need a fair bit of copy editing and SGML policy work, but
that is probably easier to do once it has been applied. Barring any
objections I'll apply the patch within 24
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2005-31-10 at 22:41 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
I believe this is now complete and ready for application.
The changes need a fair bit of copy editing and SGML policy work, but
that is probably easier to do once it has been applied. Barring any
On Mon, 2005-31-10 at 23:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'd argue for editing first and then applying. I'll take up the job
if you don't have time for the editing part
Okay. I'll do a round of copy editing and then commit to CVS -- there
will likely be room for additional improvements, so once
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 23:27 -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2005-31-10 at 23:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'd argue for editing first and then applying. I'll take up the job
if you don't have time for the editing part
Okay. I'll do a round of copy editing and then commit to CVS -- there
16 matches
Mail list logo
