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

Re: [HACKERS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "'Ben Grimm'" <bgrimm(at)zaeon(dot)com>,Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com>,Tom Pfau <T(dot)Pfau(at)emCrit(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously
Date: 2002-03-15 15:44:16
Message-ID: 200203151544.g2FFiG805555@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 2. I renamed XLogCtl->RedoRecPtr to SavedRedoRecPtr, and renamed
> the associated routines to SetSavedRedoRecPtr/GetSavedRedoRecPtr,
> in hopes of reducing confusion.

Good.

> 3. I believe it'd now be possible to remove SavedRedoRecPtr and
> SetSavedRedoRecPtr/GetSavedRedoRecPtr entirely, in favor of letting
> the postmaster fetch the updated pointer with GetRedoRecPtr just
> like a backend would.  This would be cleaner and less code ... but
> someone might object that it introduces a risk of postmaster hangup,
> if some backend crashes whilst holding info_lck.  I consider that
> risk minuscule given the short intervals in which info_lck is held,
> but it can't be denied that the risk is not zero.  Thoughts?

The change sounds good to me.

> Comments?  Unless I hear objections I will patch this in current
> and the 7.2 branch.  (If we agree to remove SavedRedoRecPtr,
> though, I don't think we should back-patch that change.)

Totally agree.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: 'Ben Grimm'Date: 2002-03-15 15:44:35
Subject: Re: Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-03-15 15:43:25
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: 'Ben Grimm'Date: 2002-03-15 15:44:35
Subject: Re: Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-03-15 15:43:25
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group