| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steve Kehlet <steve(dot)kehlet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Forums postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |
| Date: | 2015-06-01 20:53:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20150601205355.GD2988@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro wrote:
> > - There's a third possible problem related to boundary cases in
> > SlruScanDirCbRemoveMembers, but I don't understand that one well
> > enough to explain it. Maybe Thomas can jump in here and explain the
> > concern.
>
> I noticed something in passing which is probably not harmful, and not
> relevant to this bug report, it was just a bit confusing while
> testing:
Another thing I noticed in passing is that
SimpleLruDoesPhysicalFileExist uses SLRU_OPEN_FAILED in slru_errcase for
the case where lseek() fails, rather than SLRU_SEEK_FAILED. This is
probably completely harmless, because that's lseek(..., SEEK_END), but
seems rather odd anyway.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Ulbrich | 2015-06-01 20:54:59 | TRIGGER TRUNCATE -- CASCADE or RESTRICT |
| Previous Message | Andreas Ulbrich | 2015-06-01 20:45:55 | Re: Find out what on what function depends an index |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-06-01 21:18:35 | Re: nested loop semijoin estimates |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-06-01 20:48:16 | Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely |