Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Alvaro Herrera 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
Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #4941: pg_stat_statements crash
Tom Lane escribió: > Alvaro Herrera 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 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
Itagaki Takahiro 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
Itagaki Takahiro escribió: > > Tom Lane 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
Tom Lane 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