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

Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash
Date: 2012-07-02 04:04:37
Message-ID: 6A46D6EC-CD7E-4F41-9DED-C7CAEB079887@gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jul 1, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> However, I'm a bit worried by the "if (!FirstSnapshotSet)" restriction
> in GetLatestSnapshot.  Are we sure that enum comparisons could never
> happen without a snapshot already being set?  What's the point of
> throwing an error there anyway, as opposed to letting it redirect to
> GetTransactionSnapshot?

I don't know whether it should set the transaction snapshot or just r

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-07-02 04:07:01
Subject: Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash
Previous:From: Darren DuncanDate: 2012-07-01 23:54:58
Subject: Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views

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