| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash |
| Date: | 2012-07-02 04:07:01 |
| Message-ID: | 798991EA-747A-4456-8002-3C69476CAE40@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 2, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I don't know whether it should set the transaction snapshot or just r
Argh, sorry.
...or just return a current snapshot, and I also don't know whether it needs to be changed because of this; but I agree with changing it. Erroring out always seemed kind of pointless to me...
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-02 04:24:06 | Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-07-02 04:04:37 | Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash |