From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
Date: | 2009-01-23 16:22:21 |
Message-ID: | 4979EEBD.5060108@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> @@ -1601,6 +1602,24 @@ BufferProcessRecoveryConflictsIfAny(volatile BufferDesc *bufHdr)
> {
> XLogRecPtr bufLSN = BufferGetLSN(bufHdr);
>
> + /*
> + * If the buffer is recent we may need to cancel ourselves
> + * rather than risk returning a wrong answer. This test is
> + * too conservative, but it is correct.
> + *
>>> + * We only need to cancel the current subtransaction.
> + * Once we've handled the error then other subtransactions can
> + * continue processing. Note that we do *not* reset the
> + * BufferRecoveryConflictLSN at subcommit/abort, but we do
> + * reset it if we release our last remaining sbapshot.
> + * see SnapshotResetXmin()
> + *
Is it really enough to cancel just the current subtransaction? What if
it's a serializable transaction?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2009-01-23 16:26:14 | Re: Controlling hot standby |
Previous Message | decibel | 2009-01-23 16:18:30 | Re: deductive databases in postgreSQL |