Re: problems with table corruption continued

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "Brian Hirt" <bhirt(at)mobygames(dot)com>, "Postgres Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Brian A Hirt" <bhirt(at)berkhirt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: problems with table corruption continued
Date: 2001-12-18 23:01:13
Message-ID: 19188.1008716473@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Should the change be TransactionIdIsInProgress(tuple->t_cmin) ?

I'd be willing to do
if (tuple->t_cmin is my XID)
do something;
Assert(!TransactionIdIsInProgress(tuple->t_cmin));
if that makes you feel better. But anything that's scanning
a table exclusive-locked by another transaction is broken.
(BTW: contrib/pgstattuple is thus broken. Will fix.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2001-12-18 23:30:29 Re: Scheduling Jobs in Postgres
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-12-18 22:24:54 Re: Explicit config patch 7.2B4