Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SSI patch version 14

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Date: 2011-02-01 17:51:04
Message-ID: 1296582664.11513.823.camel@jdavis (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 11:01 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> My compiler doesn't.

Strange. Maybe it requires -O2?

> Would it make sense to elog here, rather than
> Assert?  I'm not clear on the rules for that.

elog looks fine there to me, assuming we have the default case. I'm not
100% clear on the rules, either. I think invalid input/corruption are
usually elog (so they can be caught in non-assert builds); but other
switch statements have them as well ("unrecognized node...").

> A small push dealing with all the above issues and adding a little
> to comments:
> Let me know if any of that still needs work to avoid confusion and
> comply with PostgreSQL coding conventions.  Like I said, I'm not
> totally clear whether elog is right here, but it seems to me a
> conceptually similar case to some I found elsewhere that elog was
> used.

Looks good. It also looks like it contains a bugfix for subtransactions,

	Jeff Davis

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-02-01 17:58:52
Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-02-01 17:47:03
Subject: Re: FPI

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group