From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hot standby, slot ids and stuff |
Date: | 2009-01-10 11:45:52 |
Message-ID: | 1231587952.18005.618.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 09:40 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> This leads to an error when we SubTransSetParent(child_xid, top_xid);
> since this assumes that the top_xid is the parent, which it is not.
> Mostly you wouldn't notice unless you were looking up the subtrans
> status for an xid that had committed but was the child of an aborted
> subtransaction, with the top level xid having > 64 subtransactions.
> It's possible the confusion leads to other bugs in UnobservedXid
> processing, but I didn't look too hard at that.
>
> AFAICS we need both parent and top xids.
I wonder if its possible to derive the parent by looking at the
highest/most newly assigned xid? Abort records would remove aborted
subtransactions and AFAIK we currently assign a new subtransaction only
ever from the latest current subtransaction. (This wouldn't be
necessarily true if supported true branch-anywhere subtransactions, but
we don't). Sounds correct, but not really sure.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2009-01-10 12:39:51 | Re: WIP: Automatic view update rules |
Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2009-01-10 11:31:39 | Re: Proposal: new border setting in psql |