| From: | marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-21 14:22:50 |
| Message-ID: | x2lb1b9fac61004210722j5bce99at4d50b1a2a7e2b5d5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >
>> > Adding an assertion isn't going to do much because it's unlikely anybody
>> > is going to be running for 2^31 transactions with asserts enabled.
>> >
>
>> I think the assert is a good idea. If there's no real problem here,
>> the assert won't trip. It's just a safety precaution.
>
> If you believe that, then I think you should add this to all the other
> places in the current server where that assumption is made without
> assertion being added. As a safety precaution.
>
Is that not a good idea that (at least for dev-builds, like with
enable-cassert) the xid counter start at like 2^31 - 1000 ? It could
help catch some bugs.
Greetings
Marcin Mańk
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-21 14:49:06 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-21 14:12:43 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |