From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 盏一 <w(at)hidva(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: use `proc->pgxactoff` as the value of `index` in `ProcArrayRemove()` |
Date: | 2021-05-06 19:45:20 |
Message-ID: | 20210506194520.fbkiva75z7mwzkzq@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-05-06 15:27:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > If you do, I think it might be worthwhile to add an only-with-assertions
> > loop checking that there's no other entry with the same pgprocno in the
> > dense arrays.
>
> Hmm, I can definitely see keeping a check that the selected entry
> has the right PID and/or pgprocno, but making it search for duplicates
> seems a bit over the top. The existing code isn't guarding against
> that, and I don't really see a reason why there's a meaningful risk
> of it.
The current code makes it at least more likely for things to fall over
badly if there's such an issue, because there's a 50/50 chance that the
wrong entry would be moved. I do dimly remember hitting a nasty bug or
two during the development of 941697c3c where such a thing happened, but
I don't remember the details.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-05-06 19:49:15 | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-05-06 19:32:29 | Re: [BUG]"FailedAssertion" reported in lazy_scan_heap() when running logical replication |