Hello, thank you for understanding. At Mon, 25 Apr 2016 10:26:49 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote in <ca+tgmozdcagcf0n9paf5kzwj0cnra-e+tdgzw80gvxg77gp...@mail.gmail.com> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > A lock was already held in BackendPidGetProc(). Is it also > > needless? If so, we should use BackendPidGetProcWithLock() instad > > (the name seems a bit confusing, though). > > Oh, that's really sad. No, that lock is definitely needed. We should > probably try to figure out some day if there is a way to make this > completely lockless, but that'll have to be 9.7 material or later. > :-(
Agreed. > > What I did in the patch was just extending the lock duration > > until reading the pointer proc. I didn't added any additional > > lock. > > Sorry, I didn't realize that. Good point. I'm happy that you understand me:) > >> > The > >> > only thing we need to do is to prevent the value from being read > >> > twice, and we already have precedent for how to prevent that in > >> > freelist.c. > > > > However, I don't have objections for the patch applied. > > OK, let's leave it like that for now, then. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
