Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: We should call [Read dumpfile] routine only once even on Windows. Seems to me that you should simply do the load only when found is false. Here is a patch to fix pg_stat_statements on Windows. I see we don't need any locks because initialization is done in postmaster; There are no chance to see uninitialized state of 'pgss' after relasing AddinShmemInitLock and before load dumpfile into it. I also check pgss_shmem_shutdown and no problem. It is called only once from postmaster on shutdown. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center pg_stat_statements.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Itagaki Takahiro escribió: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: We should call [Read dumpfile] routine only once even on Windows. Seems to me that you should simply do the load only when found is false. Here is a patch to fix pg_stat_statements on Windows. Hmm, it seems the comment just above the patched line needs to be fixed. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://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
Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes: Here is a patch to fix pg_stat_statements on Windows. Yeah, that looks about right to me. Committed. 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
Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Itagaki Takahiro escribió: Here is a patch to fix pg_stat_statements on Windows. Hmm, it seems the comment just above the patched line needs to be fixed. I looked at that and decided it was OK as-is. How do you want to change it? 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
Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Tom Lane escribió: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Itagaki Takahiro escribi�: Here is a patch to fix pg_stat_statements on Windows. Hmm, it seems the comment just above the patched line needs to be fixed. I looked at that and decided it was OK as-is. How do you want to change it? The reason that it doesn't need locks is not that there's no other process running, but that it was already initialized, in the case when found is false. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://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
Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Tom Lane escribió: I looked at that and decided it was OK as-is. How do you want to change it? The reason that it doesn't need locks is not that there's no other process running, but that it was already initialized, in the case when found is false. Mph. The comment is correct, I think, but it applies to the situation after we pass the !found test, rather than where the comment is. Maybe we should just move it down one statement? 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
