| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-27 20:18:53 |
| Message-ID: | 23207.1272399533@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 13:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> WTF? Either the comment is wrong or this should not be an elog
>> condition.
> That section of code has been rewritten many times. I think it is now
> inaccurate and should be removed. I left it there because the
> unfortunate history of the project has been the removal of comments and
> then later rediscovery of the truth, sometimes more than once. I could
> no longer reproduce that error; someone else may know differently.
I haven't tested this, but it appears to me that the failure would occur
in overflow situations. If we have too many subxacts, we'll generate
XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT, which will cause the subxids to be removed from
KnownAssignedXids[]. Then later when the top-level xact commits or
aborts we'll try to remove them again as a consequence of processing
the top-level's commit/abort record. No?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-27 20:44:32 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-27 19:40:32 | Re: CP949 for EUC-KR? |