From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Date: | 2010-04-21 15:13:29 |
Message-ID: | A19FEFA9-6AE5-429C-A177-1BE5928C1914@phlo.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 21, 2010, at 16:49 , Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 16:22 +0200, marcin mank wrote:
>
>> Is that not a good idea that (at least for dev-builds, like with
>> enable-cassert) the xid counter start at like 2^31 - 1000 ? It could
>> help catch some bugs.
>
> It is a good idea, I'm sure that would help catch bugs.
>
> It wouldn't help here because the case in doubt is whether it's possible
> to have an xid still showing in memory arrays from the last time the
> cycle wrapped. It isn't. These things aren't random. These numbers are
> extracted directly from activity that was occurring on the primary and
> regularly checked and cleaned as the standby runs.
>
> So you'll need to do 2^31 transactions to prove this isn't true, which
> isn't ever going to happen in testing with an assert build and nobody
> with that many transactions would run an assert build anyway.
ISTM that there's no need to actually execute 2^31 transactions to trigger this bug (if it actually exists), it'd be sufficient to increment the xid counter by more than one each time a xid is assigned, no?
Or would that trip snapshot creation on the standby?
best regards,
Florian Pflug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-21 15:53:01 | Re: Move tablespace |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-21 14:53:05 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |