FWIW there's a stupid bug in 0002, which is fixed here. I'm writing a
simple test for it.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Now I have my system running, not a byte was off the shelf;
It rarely breaks and when it does I fix the code myself.
It's
On 2024-Mar-03, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is certainly simpler, but I notice that it holds the current
> LWLock across the line
>
> ptr = (MultiXactMember *) palloc(length * sizeof(MultiXactMember));
>
> where the old code did not. Could the palloc take long enough that
> holding the lock
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:56 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2024-Feb-28, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Improve performance of subsystems on top of SLRU
>
> Coverity had the following complaint about this commit:
>
>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> And I think it's correct that this is somewhat bogus, or at least
> confusing: the only way to have control back here on line 1371 after
> having executed once is via the "goto retry" line below; and there we
> release "prevlock" and set it to NULL beforehand, so it's
On 2024-Feb-28, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Improve performance of subsystems on top of SLRU
Coverity had the following complaint about this commit:
*** CID NNN: Control flow issues
