From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: is cachedFetchXid ever invalidated? |
Date: | 2010-12-02 04:34:12 |
Message-ID: | 28107.1291264452@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> I can't see any place that "cachedFetchXid" is ever invalidated.
> Shouldn't it be invalidated before transaction ID wraparound?
The assumption is that the value won't sit there (in a particular
session), without ever being replaced, while more than 2G transactions
elapse. Actually you'd need a full 4G transactions to elapse, and then
to wake up just in time to probe the doppelganger of the very same
transaction number, in order to have any risk of a failure.
If that makes you uncomfortable, I've got bad news: there are quite a
few other assumptions of the same ilk about the lifespan of a single
session. One comparable failure case is that starting a transaction
that acquires an XID, and then going to sleep for ~2G transactions,
will cause all kinds of trouble.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-02 04:36:42 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |
Previous Message | Andy Colson | 2010-12-02 04:27:37 | Re: unlogged tables |