From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Date: | 2010-04-27 21:45:53 |
Message-ID: | 1272404753.4161.8355.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 17:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Isn't the snapshotOldestActiveXid filter in
> RecordKnownAssignedTransactionIds completely wrong/useless/bogus?
>
> AFAICS, snapshotOldestActiveXid is only set once at the start of
> recovery. This means it will soon be too old to provide any useful
> filtering. But what's far worse is that the XID space will eventually
> wrap around, and that test will start filtering *everything*.
>
> I think we should just lose that test, as well as the variable.
Yes, though it looks like it is still necessary in creating a valid
initial state because otherwise we may have xids in KnownAssigned array
that are already complete. The comment there talks about wasting memory,
though it appears to be a correctness issue.
So perhaps a similar test is required in ProcArrayApplyRecoveryInfo()
but not in RecordKnownAssignedTransactionIds(). That way it is applied,
but only once at initialisation.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-27 22:08:29 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-27 21:24:48 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |