Re: Small issues in syncrep.c
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Small issues in syncrep.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CANP8+jLqWwawUij7MV-ZT9+-LEAyRnHJ_6zTZE+w0Oeqw2rOEQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Small issues in syncrep.c (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Small issues in syncrep.c
Re: Small issues in syncrep.c |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 August 2016 at 06:24, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Julien Rouhaud > <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com> wrote: >> Since 14e8803f1, it's not necessary to acquire the SyncRepLock to see up >> to date data. But it looks like this commit didn't update all the >> comment around MyProc->syncRepState, which still mention retrieving the >> value without and without lock. Also, there's I think a now unneeded >> test to try to retrieve again syncRepState. >> >> Patch attached to fix both small issues, present since 9.5. > > You could directly check MyProc->syncRepState and remove syncRepState. > Could you add it to the next commit fest? I don't think this will get > into 9.6 as this is an optimization. Good catch. I've updated Julien's patch to reflect Michael's suggestion. Looks good to apply immediately. 14e8803f1 was only a partial patch for the syncrep code, so I don't see any reason to keep the code as it currently is in 9.5/9.6. Any objections to backpatching this to 9.5 and 9.6? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: