Jaime Casanova írta: > 2010/1/13 Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at>: > >> Tom Lane írta: >> >>> If this patch is touching those parts of relcache.c, it probably needs >>> rethinking. >>> >>> >> What I did there is to check the return value of LockRelationOid() >> > > the hunk was because a diference in the position (i guess patch accept > a hunk of reasonable size, assuming there is something like a > reasonable size for that) > > and is not touching the same as your refactor (sorry if i explain myself bad) > > >> and also elog(PANIC) if the lock wasn't available. >> Does it need rethinking? >> >> > > well, i actually think that PANIC is too high for this... >
Well, it tries to lock and then open a critical system index. Failure to open it has PANIC, it seemed appropriate to use the same error level if the lock failure case. Best regards, Zoltán Böszörményi -- Bible has answers for everything. Proof: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology. "May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics ---------------------------------- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH http://www.postgresql.at/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
