Re: Why we still see some reports of "could not access transaction status"

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why we still see some reports of "could not access transaction status"
Date: 2004-10-14 13:00:46
Message-ID: 20041014130045.GA4174@dcc.uchile.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:18:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> I think what we ought to do to solve this problem permanently is to stop
> making the callers of the HeapTupleSatisfiesFoo() routines responsible
> for checking for hint bit updates. It would be a lot safer, and AFAICS
> not noticeably less efficient, for those routines to call
> SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave for themselves. This would require adding
> to their parameter lists, because they aren't currently told which
> buffer the tuple is in, but that's no big deal considering we get to
> simplify the calling logic in all the places that are faithfully doing
> the t_infomask update check.
>
> Comments?

I remember seeing this code when coding the phantom Xid idea and
wondering why such an error-prone style was used. It never ocurred to
me to change it (or maybe have the guts to do it), but now that you
mention it it certainly seems a good idea.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
Tulio: oh, para qué servirá este boton, Juan Carlos?
Policarpo: No, aléjense, no toquen la consola!
Juan Carlos: Lo apretaré una y otra vez.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-10-14 19:09:42 plperl Safe restrictions
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2004-10-14 08:57:55 Re: Networking feature for postgresql...