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

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-04-27 17:52:50
Message-ID: 20854.1272390770@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> v3 attached

This patch changes KnownAssignedXidsRemove() so that failure to find
the target XID is elog(ERROR) (ie, a PANIC, since this is in the
startup process).  However, this comment is still there:

	/*
	 * We can fail to find an xid if the xid came from a subtransaction that
	 * aborts, though the xid hadn't yet been reported and no WAL records have
	 * been written using the subxid. In that case the abort record will
	 * contain that subxid and we haven't seen it before.
	 */

WTF?  Either the comment is wrong or this should not be an elog
condition.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-04-27 18:13:33
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-04-27 17:18:28
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct

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