| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 011_crash_recovery.pl intermittently fails |
| Date: | 2021-03-05 04:30:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGK50B4soLLa=Vjt58m=GcYtTve7uSGbEEa6dj6GRExAFQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I'd be kind of inclined to remove this test script altogether, on the
> > grounds that it's wasting cycles on a function that doesn't really
> > do what is claimed (and we should remove the documentation claim, too).
>
> Alternatively, maybe we can salvage the function's usefulness by making it
> flush WAL before returning?
To make pg_xact_status()'s result reliable, don't you need to make
pg_current_xact_id() flush? In other words, isn't it at the point
that you *observe* the transaction that you have to make sure that
this transaction ID won't be reused after crash recovery. Before
that, it's simultaneously allocated and unallocated, like the cat.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-05 04:40:34 | Re: 011_crash_recovery.pl intermittently fails |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-03-05 04:30:11 | Re: [PATCH] pgbench: Bug fix for the -d option |