On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This patch looks reasonable, but I'm a bit concerned about the >> chunk immediately preceding the patched area. >> >> When we do this: >> >> LWLockRelease(SerializableXactHashLock); >> LWLockRelease(partitionLock); >> LWLockRelease(SerializablePredicateLockListLock); >> LWLockAcquire(partitionLock, LW_SHARED); >> LWLockAcquire(SerializableXactHashLock, LW_SHARED); >> >> Don't we need to also reset nextpredlock to the head of the list? >> I'm assuming it's the partitionLock that's keeping the >> PREDICATELOCKs from bouncing out from under us, so if we release >> it, aren't we potentially point off into thin air? > > I think you are right. That sequence should be followed by a copy > of the same "nextpredlock = " statement that's just above. Do you > want me to revise the patch or do you just want to take care of it > as part of the commit? > > Thanks for catching that.
If you could send a revised patch, that would be great. I don't want to muck it up by accident. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
