| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: assertion in 9.4 with wal_level=logical |
| Date: | 2014-04-18 14:44:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZeKqWYRVX9816ZVD+-B_9Nkc=C7axN_twkETQNCXTC=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-04-17 17:40:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> For once, this looks more like a problem in logical decoding, which is
>> trying to assert about the tuple being updated; the assertion failing is
>> the one added a week ago about not palloc'ing in a critical section.
>
> It's this (older) assertion in HeapTupleHeaderGetCmax():
>
> Assert(TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId(HeapTupleHeaderGetUpdateXid(tup)));
>
> That can allocate memory if xmax is a multixact... Does anybody have a
> better idea to solve this than adding a CritSectionCount == 0 && in
> there?
Blech. Isn't that just nerfing the assertion?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-04-18 14:50:55 | Re: assertion in 9.4 with wal_level=logical |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-18 13:43:27 | Re: Get more from indices. |