| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Assertion failure on hot standby |
| Date: | 2010-11-26 12:32:18 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinSGpu=m-inxS6+R7yAfGCjLiWn_-Rgn7i-jVZt@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> That would mean running GetCurrentTransactionId() inside LockAcquire()
>
>> if (lockmode >= AccessExclusiveLock &&
>> locktag->locktag_type == LOCKTAG_RELATION &&
>> !RecoveryInProgress())
>> (void) GetCurrentTransactionId();
>
>> Any objections to that fix?
>
> Could we have a wal level test in there too please? It's pretty awful
> in any case...
+1.
Incidentally, I haven't been able to wrap my head around why we need
to propagate AccessExclusiveLocks to the standby in the first place.
Can someone explain?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2010-11-26 12:41:58 | Re: Assertion failure on hot standby |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-26 12:29:48 | Re: contrib: auth_delay module |