Re: Hot standby, slot ids and stuff

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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