Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE based on BLCKSZ.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE based on BLCKSZ.
Date: 2011-07-08 15:38:51
Message-ID: 27965.1310139531@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> So if MaxTransactionId+1 overflows to zero, OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE becomes -1.
>> Or a very high value, if the result of that is unsigned, as at least MSVC
>> seems to interpret it given the other warning I got. If it's interpreted as
>> a large unsigned value, then the SLRU_PAGES_PER_SEGMENT * 0x10000 - 1 value
>> wins. That's what what we had prior to this patch, in beta2, so we're back
>> to square one. If it's interpreted as signed -1, then bad things will happen
>> as soon as the SLRU is used.

> Should we, then, consider rewrapping beta3?

At this point I think the actual choice we'd have is to abandon beta3
and try again next week with a beta4. I'm trying to figure out whether
this bug is serious enough to warrant that, but it's not clear to me.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2011-07-08 15:44:02 Re: News on Clang
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-07-08 15:35:25 API for GetConfigOption()