| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Assertion failure on hot standby |
| Date: | 2010-11-26 08:44:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1290761062.14888.2736.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 11:19 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > As to solutions, it cannot be acceptable to ignore some locks just
> > because an xid has not been assigned.
>
> Even if GetRunningTransactionLocks ignores such a lock, it's eventually
> WAL-logged by LogAccessExclusiveLock, isn't it?
If it were true always, I would much prefer your solution.
Assuming that would then cause a race condition between the logging of
the RunningXactsData and the lock, which wouldn't move us forwards.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-11-26 08:59:24 | memory leak in libxml2 - fix |
| Previous Message | Shigeru HANADA | 2010-11-26 07:55:37 | Re: SQL/MED - core functionality |