From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |
Date: | 2006-09-14 14:22:22 |
Message-ID: | 20060914142222.GA525@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I see a bug though, which is that RecordSubTransactionAbort() calls
> > GetCurrentTransactionId() before having verified that it needs to do
> > anything. This means that we'll generate and then discard an XID
> > uselessly in a failed subxact that didn't touch disk.
>
> Well, it would be a bug except that RecordSubTransactionAbort isn't
> called unless the current subxact has an XID. Perhaps a comment would
> be appropriate but there's nothing to fix here.
>
> I think Theo's problem is probably somewhere else, too --- apparently
> it's not so much that TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId takes a long
> time as that something is calling it lots of times with no check for
> interrupt.
Could it be something like heap_lock_tuple? It calls MultiXactIdWait,
which calls GetMultXactIdMembers and TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId
on each member. (heap_update and heap_delete do the same thing). I
must admit I didn't read Theo's description on his scenario though.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pascal Meunier | 2006-09-14 14:24:43 | minor feature request: Secure defaults during function creation |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-14 14:13:49 | Re: Release notes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 14:43:19 | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 13:57:59 | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |