Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby.
Date: 2008-10-22 19:18:51
Message-ID: 11276.1224703131@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> These traces look weird. Look at the way the xid changes value as we
> move from call to call. It looks like something is screwy there. If
> those values are correct we should have failed an earlier assertion.

No, that's normal behavior on this platform + optimization setting.
Some of those registers have gotten re-used for other values. If
I were desperate to figure out how it got from point A to point B
I'd recompile with -O0, but this particular call stack doesn't seem
to hold any surprises: as you say, it seems to be trying to commit
an aborted xact. I looked far enough to see that the subxact ID
was a couple counts higher than the main, so I doubt that bad data
in the WAL record is the issue.

Are you able to reproduce the crash?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-10-22 19:52:24 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby.
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-10-22 18:08:52 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-10-22 19:21:06 Re: minimal update
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2008-10-22 19:15:54 Re: minimal update