Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> > Right, but I still need the other part of the check, right? This one
> > still fails the same check as my patch, no? Because I assume the hole
> > you found there was that get_sync_bit() will return 0 for two
different
> > sync methods as long as none of them are O_SYNC or O_DSYNC...
> 
> No, my point was that there are three possible states of sync_bit and
> your patch only accounted for transitions between two of 'em.  For
> instance, if sync_bit goes to 0 we must close and reopen the file,
> else we'll be doing both O_SYNC flush and whatever flush method
> is supposed to be getting used.

Did this every get addressed?  I don't see a commit for it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers