From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, ah(at)cybertec(dot)at, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code |
Date: | 2018-07-09 23:29:42 |
Message-ID: | 3390.1531178982@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> At Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:12:04 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CAA4eK1K5YyDmndko0zzW6WNCN_DGFVHa6DCYcyuvkBWTH5+nUQ(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
>>> It seems to me that we do take actions for conflict resolution during
>>> the page deletion (that looks to be covered by XLOG_HEAP2_CLEANUP_INFO
>>> which we emit in vacuum), but not sure if that is sufficient.
>>> Consider a case where the new transaction is started on standby after
>>
>> Here by new transaction, I intend to say some newer snapshot with
>> valid MyPgXact->xmin.
> I agree to the diagnosis. So the WAL record is not necessary if
> it is a new page since no one cannot be grabbing it.
Thanks for reviving this thread and reviewing the problem.
I pushed the patch now with some more work on the comments.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-07-09 23:35:59 | Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-07-09 23:24:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Clock with Adaptive Replacement |