Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SSI patch version 14

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Date: 2011-01-31 20:02:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> Really, I think this should be using HTSV to separate concerns
> better and improve readability. My first reaction was to try to
> find out what the function was doing that's special. If it is
> doing something special, and HTSV is not what you're really
> looking for, a comment to explain would be helpful.
It does seem that at least a comment would be needed.  I'm not at
all confident that there isn't some macro or function which would
yield what I need.  I just sent an email clarifying exactly what I
want to check, so if you can see a better way to determine that, I'm
all ears.
> As an example, consider that Robert Haas recently suggested using
> an infomask bit to mean frozen, rather than actually removing the
> xid, to save the xid as forensic information. If that were to
> happen, your code would be reading an xid that may have been
> re-used.
Yeah, clearly if the code remains as it is, it would be sensitive to
changes in how hint bits or the xid values are used.  If we can
abstract that, it's clearly a Good Thing to do so.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-01-31 20:04:38
Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-01-31 19:58:27
Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group