| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |
| Date: | 2006-09-14 15:30:52 |
| Message-ID: | 29565.1158247852@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> --- and because the entries are surely added in increasing XID order,
>> such an array could be binary-searched.
> If they're only added if they write to disk then isn't it possible to add them
> out of order? Start a child transaction, start a child of that one and write
> to disk, then exit the grandchild and write to disk in the first
> child?
No, because we enforce child XID > parent XID. In the case above, the
child xact would be given an XID when the grandchild needs one --- see
recursion in AssignSubTransactionId(). The actually slightly shaky
assumption above is that children of the same parent xact must subcommit
in numerical order ... but as long as we have strict nesting of subxacts
I think this must be so.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gevik Babakhani | 2006-09-14 15:36:16 | Opinion wanted on UUID/GUID datatype output formats. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-14 15:20:30 | Re: [ADMIN] Vacuum error on database postgres |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-09-14 18:17:18 | Doc patch on Warm Standby for High Availability |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2006-09-14 15:15:04 | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |