| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres-Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Sandro Santilli <strk(at)keybit(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: uninterruptable loop: concurrent delete in progress within table |
| Date: | 2014-06-04 23:10:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20140604231049.GM785@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2014-06-04 19:03:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Robert: Do you remember that case?
> >
> > Alvaro: In the end it'd not be very harmful - if it happens
> > TransactionIdDidCommit() will return false (there's special case code
> > for it).
>
> Not specifically, but I'd be surprised if it isn't possible.
Wouldn't that mean that every single visibility routine in tqual.c is
buggy?
I am not convinced there aren't further bugs in some corner cases in
tqual.c. But even a low likelihood scenarious of
xmax = InvalidTransactionId && (infomask & XMAX_INVALID) == 0
would have become visible by now given how widespread/central those
tests are?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-04 23:12:14 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-04 23:10:16 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max |