From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to crash postgres using savepoints |
Date: | 2006-11-16 21:08:02 |
Message-ID: | 1026.1163711282@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-general |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Did we explicitly decide
>> to do this differently from spec, and if so why?
> Yeah, we did. I think the rationale was what happens when you have
> another savepoint in the middle, say
> SAVEPOINT foo;
> SAVEPOINT bar;
> SAVEPOINT foo;
Ah, right. I'm not in a huge hurry to change this, anyway ... it's not
like there aren't any number of other ways to run the system out of
locktable slots.
(I spent a bit of time thinking about whether we needed locktable
entries for subxacts at all, but I don't see how to preserve the
stop-waiting-on-subxact-abort behavior of XactLockTableWait without
them. We can't just wait on the subxact's topmost parent.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-16 22:48:16 | Re: [PERFORM] BUG #2737: hash indexing large table fails, while btree of same index works |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-11-16 20:59:33 | Re: How to crash postgres using savepoints |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2006-11-16 23:17:13 | Re: PostgreSQL: Question about rules |
Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2006-11-16 21:07:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Not your father's question about deadlocks |