From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
Date: | 2021-04-30 09:31:04 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+ZeVoC1UBLPH7eCuSO5s6-1LPgM6GCv0=ZT4qQsoDB-Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 11:03 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 11:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> The idea I have is to additionally check that we are decoding
> > streaming or prepared transaction (the same check as we have for
> > setting curtxn) or we can check if CheckXidAlive is a valid
> > transaction id. What do you think?
>
> I think a check based on CheckXidAlive looks good to me. This will
> protect against if a similar error is raised from any other path as
> you mentioned above.
>
We can't use CheckXidAlive because it is reset by that time. So, I
used the other approach which led to the attached.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v1-0001-Tighten-the-concurrent-abort-check-during-decodin.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2021-04-30 10:04:44 | Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-04-30 09:19:34 | Re: Enhanced error message to include hint messages for redundant options error |