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: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 04:07:01
Message-ID: 798991EA-747A-4456-8002-3C69476CAE40@gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jul 2, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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

Argh, sorry.

...or just return a current snapshot, and I also don't know whether it needs to be changed because of this; but I agree with changing it. Erroring out always seemed kind of pointless to me...

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-07-02 04:24:06
Subject: Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-07-02 04:04:37
Subject: Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash

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