| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash |
| Date: | 2012-07-01 20:18:48 |
| Message-ID: | 28297.1341173928@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think the problem is that load_enum_cache_data() uses
>> GetTransactionSnapshot() rather than GetLatestSnapshot().
> That would only make the race condition window smaller (ie, hard
> to reproduce manually like this, but not gone).
No, wait, we made ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE PreventTransactionChain so that
uncommitted enum OIDs could never get into tables or indexes. So I
think you're right, forcing a new snapshot to be used would fix this.
However, I'm a bit worried by the "if (!FirstSnapshotSet)" restriction
in GetLatestSnapshot. Are we sure that enum comparisons could never
happen without a snapshot already being set? What's the point of
throwing an error there anyway, as opposed to letting it redirect to
GetTransactionSnapshot?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-07-01 20:25:27 | Re: Update on the spinlock->pthread_mutex patch experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-01 19:59:08 | Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash |