| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wrong assert in TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus |
| Date: | 2019-12-12 15:14:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobktGOfEudrjTcVr3R6wftdWS_ivjYB_pNm=i_XKWiyaw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 4:32 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> and then, within an if():
>
> /*
> * We don't try to do group update optimization if a process has
> * overflowed the subxids array in its PGPROC, since in that case we
> * don't have a complete list of XIDs for it.
> */
> Assert(THRESHOLD_SUBTRANS_CLOG_OPT <= PGPROC_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS);
>
> Even if these weren't redundant, it can't make sense to test such a
> static condition only within an if? Is it possible this was actually
> intended to test something different?
Based on the comment, I imagine it might've been intended to read
Assert(nsubxids <= PGPROC_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Asif Rehman | 2019-12-12 15:19:57 | Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-12 15:13:17 | Re: Duplicate function call on timestamp2tm |