On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > Actually, isn't that another bug? The fact that we don't do the same > from within gc_qtexts() in normal cases, even with an exclusive lock > held? We do this:
Ah, no. We check pgss->gc_count in any case, so it should be fine. That will also make it safe to do the unlink() as outlined already, because a new qtext_load_file() call from pg_stat_statements_internal() (due to gc_count bump) will allocate the file again by name. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
