From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby. |
Date: | 2008-10-22 19:18:51 |
Message-ID: | 11276.1224703131@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> These traces look weird. Look at the way the xid changes value as we
> move from call to call. It looks like something is screwy there. If
> those values are correct we should have failed an earlier assertion.
No, that's normal behavior on this platform + optimization setting.
Some of those registers have gotten re-used for other values. If
I were desperate to figure out how it got from point A to point B
I'd recompile with -O0, but this particular call stack doesn't seem
to hold any surprises: as you say, it seems to be trying to commit
an aborted xact. I looked far enough to see that the subxact ID
was a couple counts higher than the main, so I doubt that bad data
in the WAL record is the issue.
Are you able to reproduce the crash?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-22 19:52:24 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby. |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-22 18:08:52 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-22 19:21:06 | Re: minimal update |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-10-22 19:15:54 | Re: minimal update |