> > Tom, since you appear to be able to recreate the bug, can you comment on
> > this, as to whether we are okay now?
>
> Sorry for the delay --- I was down in Norfolk all day, and am just now
> catching up on email. I will pull Vadim's update and run the test some
> more. However, last night I
okay, baring you bein able to recreate the bug between now and, say,
13:00AST tomorrow, I'll wrap up RC1 and get her out the door ...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom, since you appear to be able to recreate the bug, can you comment on
The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom, since you appear to be able to recreate the bug, can you comment on
> this, as to whether we are okay now?
Sorry for the delay --- I was down in Norfolk all day, and am just now
catching up on email. I will pull Vadim's update and run the test
Tom, since you appear to be able to recreate the bug, can you comment on
this, as to whether we are okay now?
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> Just committed changes in bufmgr.c
> Regress tests passed but need more specific tests,
> as usually. Descr as in CVS:
>
> > Check bufHdr->cn
Just committed changes in bufmgr.c
Regress tests passed but need more specific tests,
as usually. Descr as in CVS:
> Check bufHdr->cntxDirty and call StartBufferIO in BufferSync()
> *before* acquiring shlock on buffer context. This way we should be
> protected against conflicts with FlushRelation
