| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: strange behaviour (bug) |
| Date: | 2000-09-12 23:36:23 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018CBA@SECTORBASE1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Probably WAL would solve this phenomenon by rolling
> back the content of disc and shared buffer in reality.
> However if 7.0.x would be released we had better change
> bufmgr IMHO.
I'm going to handle btree split but currently there is no way
to rollback it - we unlock splitted pages after parent
is locked and concurrent backend may update one/both of
siblings before we get our locks back.
We have to continue with split or could leave parent unchanged
and handle "my bits moved..." (ie continue split in another
xaction if we found no parent for a page) ... or we could hold
locks on all splitted pages till some parent updated without
split, but I wouldn't do this.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-09-12 23:40:05 | RE: Status of new relation file naming |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-09-12 23:26:17 | RE: strange behaviour (bug) |