Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > Basically, you can't make any critical changes to a shared buffer > > if you haven't got exclusive lock on it. But that's exactly what > > this patch is assuming it can do. > > It seems to me that the only possible way to close this hole is to > acquire an exclusive lock before calling FlushBuffers, not shared. > This lock would be held until the flag has been examined and reset; the > actual WAL record and write would continue with a shared lock, as now.
We don't seem to have an API for reducing LWLock strength though ... -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
