| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby. |
| Date: | 2008-10-22 20:27:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1224707259.27145.470.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 20:52 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Took a while, but yes, I can reproduce this now. Analysing...
OK, I think I see what it's doing and why it fails the assert.
It's nothing to do with confusing commit/abort.
The new way of doing things on commit is to subcommit then commit. This
sequence is repeated during WAL replay. If we crash, it will try to
repeat the sequence, so in some cases it will try to set status to
subcommitted on a transaction already marked as committed.
So it fails the Assertion, but does the right thing.
A few ways to fix this, but patch to make that case a no-op is attached.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| clog_bug.v1.patch | text/x-patch | 850 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-22 20:41:36 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-22 20:17:52 | pgsql: Dept of better ideas: refrain from creating the planner's |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-22 20:41:36 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby. |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-22 19:52:24 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby. |