Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 7 June 2012 14:56, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Say what? That's a performance result and proves not a damn thing about
>> safety.
> Of course not.
> Based on the rationale explained in the code comments in the patch, it
> seems like a reasonable thing to me now.
> The argument was that since we hold AccessExclusiveLock on the
> relation, no other agent can be reading in new parts of the table into
> new buffers, so the only change to a buffer would be away from the
> dropping relation, in which case we wouldn't care. Which seems correct
> to me.
Oh, I must be confused about which patch we are talking about --- I
thought this was in reference to some of the WIP ideas that were being
thrown about with respect to using lock-free access primitives. Which
patch are you proposing for commit now, exactly?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
