‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:35 AM Georgios Kokolatos
> gkokola...@protonmail.com wrote:
>
> > As a general overview, the series of patches in the mail thread do match
> > their description. The
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Pushed the first patch just now, and intend to push the other one soon.
> Thanks!
Pushed the second piece of this (the nbtree patch) just now.
Thanks for the review!
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:35 AM Georgios Kokolatos
wrote:
> As a general overview, the series of patches in the mail thread do match
> their description. The addition of the stricter, explicit use of
> instrumentation does improve the design as the distinction of the use cases
> requiring a pin
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 7:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I wonder whether skink's failure today is due to this change:
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=skink=2020-07-18%2018%3A01%3A10
That seems extremely likely. I think that I need to do something like
what you see in the
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:24 AM Anastasia Lubennikova
> wrote:
>> Other than that, patches look good to me, so move them to "Ready For
>> Committer".
> Pushed the first patch just now, and intend to push the other one soon.
> Thanks!
I wonder whether skink's failure
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:24 AM Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
> It's impressive that this check helped to find several bugs.
While it's definitely true that it *could* have detected the bug fixed
by commit b0229f26, it's kind of debatable whether or not the bugs I
fixed in commit fa7ff642 and
On 02.07.2020 20:11, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:48 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
This patch fails to apply to HEAD due to conflicts in nbtpage.c, can you please
submit a rebased version?
I attach the rebased patch series.
Thanks
It's impressive that this check helped to
As a general overview, the series of patches in the mail thread do match their
description. The addition of the stricter, explicit use of instrumentation does
improve the design as the distinction of the use cases requiring a pin or a
lock is made more clear. The added commentary is descriptive
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:48 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> This patch fails to apply to HEAD due to conflicts in nbtpage.c, can you
> please
> submit a rebased version?
I attach the rebased patch series.
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan
v3-0002-Add-nbtree-Valgrind-buffer-lock-checks.patch
> On 26 Apr 2020, at 02:17, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached is v2 of the patch series.
This patch fails to apply to HEAD due to conflicts in nbtpage.c, can you please
submit a rebased version?
cheers ./daniel
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 6:37 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The final two patches fix the two newly discovered bugs -- I don't
> have a fix for the first bug yet, since that one is more complicated
> (and probably more serious).
I pushed both of the two fixes that I posted yesterday -- fixes for
I recently expressed an interest in using Valgrind memcheck to detect
access to pages whose buffers do not have a pin held in the backend,
or do not have a buffer lock held (the latter check makes sense for
pages owned by index access methods). I came up with a quick and dirty
patch, that I
12 matches
Mail list logo
