| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE based on BLCKSZ. |
| Date: | 2011-07-08 15:32:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZfk11SOvP2j3Ekxm5ukpeFXuMCHipVR9B-TvRQ3VV=0A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> So if MaxTransactionId+1 overflows to zero, OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE becomes -1.
> Or a very high value, if the result of that is unsigned, as at least MSVC
> seems to interpret it given the other warning I got. If it's interpreted as
> a large unsigned value, then the SLRU_PAGES_PER_SEGMENT * 0x10000 - 1 value
> wins. That's what what we had prior to this patch, in beta2, so we're back
> to square one. If it's interpreted as signed -1, then bad things will happen
> as soon as the SLRU is used.
Should we, then, consider rewrapping beta3?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-08 15:35:25 | API for GetConfigOption() |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-07-08 15:16:53 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE based on BLCKSZ. |