Re: Remembering bug #6123

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remembering bug #6123
Date: 2012-01-12 16:16:39
Message-ID: 4F0EB30702000025000446FD@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> So what we need to do is check whether the outdate was done by a
> later CommandId than current. I see that your patch is attempting
> to deal with these issues by testing GetCurrentCommandId(false) !=
> estate->es_output_cid, but that seems completely wrong to me, as
> what it does is complain if *any* additional command has been
> executed in the transaction, regardless of what changed the target
> tuple. It ought to be comparing the tuple's xmax to
> es_output_cid. And the comment needs to cover why it's worrying
> about that.

OK. I'll rework based on your comments.

> Also, what's the point of testing update_ctid? I don't see that
> it matters whether the outdate was a delete or an update.

The update_ctid code was a carry-over from my old, slightly
different approach, which I failed to change as I should have. I'll
fix that along with the other.

Thanks,

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-01-12 16:18:29 Re: Remembering bug #6123
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-01-12 16:12:09 Re: pgbench post-connection command