| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: mvcc catalo gsnapshots and TopTransactionContext |
| Date: | 2014-02-05 23:20:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20140205232019.GG28649@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-02-05 14:07:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I stuck such an Assert in ScanPgRelation, and verified that it doesn't
> break any existing regression tests --- although of course the above
> test case still fails, and now even without declaring an index.
>
> Barring objections I'll go commit that. It's a bit pointless to be
> Asserting that catcache.c does nothing unsafe when relcache.c does
> the same things without any such test.
>
> (Alternatively, maybe we should centralize the asserting in
> systable_beginscan or some such place?)
I don't have a problem with sticking an additional assert elsewhere, but
I think ScanPgRelation, systable_beginscan are a bit late, because they
frequently won't be hit during testing because the lookups will be
cached...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-05 23:41:08 | Re: mvcc catalo gsnapshots and TopTransactionContext |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2014-02-05 22:23:25 | Re: mvcc catalo gsnapshots and TopTransactionContext |