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

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-04-21 14:49:06
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-04-21 14:12:43
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

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