| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(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 15:15:04 |
| Message-ID: | 87psdyqy2v.fsf@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> --- and because the entries are surely added in increasing XID order,
> such an array could be binary-searched.
If they're only added if they write to disk then isn't it possible to add them
out of order? Start a child transaction, start a child of that one and write
to disk, then exit the grandchild and write to disk in the first child? I'm
just going on your description, I'm not familiar with this part of the code at
all.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Russ Brown | 2006-09-14 15:15:34 | Optimising a query requiring seqscans=0 |
| Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2006-09-14 15:12:14 | Re: New version of money type |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 15:30:52 | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 14:43:19 | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |