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
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() |