Re: SimpleLruTruncate() mutual exclusion
От | Noah Misch |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SimpleLruTruncate() mutual exclusion |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200131084213.GC3203372@rfd.leadboat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SimpleLruTruncate() mutual exclusion (Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SimpleLruTruncate() mutual exclusion
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 04:34:33PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote: > > > I'm probably missing something, so just wanted to clarify. Do I > > > understand correctly, that thread [1] and this one are independent, and > > > it is assumed in the scenario above that we're at the end of XID space, > > > but not necessarily having rounding issues? I'm a bit confused, since > > > the reproduce script does something about cutoffPage, and I'm not sure > > > if it's important or not. > > > > I think the repro recipe contained an early fix for the other thread's bug. > > While they're independent in principle, I likely never reproduced this bug > > without having a fix in place for the other thread's bug. The bug in the > > other thread was easier to hit. > > Just to clarify, since the CF item for this patch was withdrawn > recently. Does it mean that eventually the thread [1] covers this one > too? > > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20190202083822.GC32531%40gust.leadboat.com I withdrew $SUBJECT because, if someone reviews one of my patches, I want it to be the one you cite in [1]. I plan not to commit [1] without a Ready for Committer, and I plan not to commit $SUBJECT before committing [1]. I would be willing to commit $SUBJECT without getting a review, however.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: