| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: assertion failure 9.3.4 |
| Date: | 2014-04-23 17:03:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20140423170314.GN25695@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I'm thinking about the comparison of full infomask as you propose
> instead of just the bits that we actually care about. I think the only
> thing that could cause a spurious failure (causing an extra execution of
> the HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate call and the stuff below) is somebody
> setting HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED concurrently; but that seems infrequent
> enough that it should pretty harmless. However, should we worry about
> possible future infomask bit changes that could negatively affect this
> behavior?
Here's a complete patch illustrating what I mean. This is slightly more
expensive than straight infomask comparison in terms of machine
instructions, but that seems okay to me.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| dont-multi.patch | text/x-diff | 6.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-04-23 17:23:16 | Re: 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2014-04-23 16:41:26 | Re: Review: ECPG FETCH readahead |