| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-21 14:12:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1271859163.8305.28038.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | marcin mank | 2010-04-21 14:22:50 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-21 14:11:00 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |