From ab77b2da8bf2cd1c8068f2f90e95c42d426aba3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Robert Haas Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:55:40 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Fix incorrect comment in SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave(). Noah Misch spotted the fact that the old comment is in fact incorrect, due to memory ordering hazards. --- src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c b/src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c index 613d7544c6..ad5a97a352 100644 --- a/src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c +++ b/src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c @@ -2376,9 +2376,11 @@ SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave(Buffer buffer) * making the first scan after commit of an xact that added/deleted many * tuples. So, be as quick as we can if the buffer is already dirty. We * do this by not acquiring spinlock if it looks like the status bits are - * already OK. (Note it is okay if someone else clears BM_JUST_DIRTIED - * immediately after we look, because the buffer content update is already - * done and will be reflected in the I/O.) + * already. Since we make this test unlocked, there's a chance we might + * fail to notice that the flags have just been cleared, and failed to reset + * them, due to memory-ordering issues. But since this function is only + * intended to be used in cases where failing to write out the data would + * be harmless anyway, it doesn't really matter. */ if ((bufHdr->flags & (BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED)) != (BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED))