From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Wrong assert in TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus |
Date: | 2019-12-17 04:43:26 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+c8CFt3CHdCLa=9j=WYJ=j-ZUS+we8DUH+3572qm_HuQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 8:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 8:51 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 9:23 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Do you think we need such an Assert after having StaticAssert for
> > > (THRESHOLD_SUBTRANS_CLOG_OPT <= PGPROC_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS) and then
> > > an if statement containing (nsubxids <= THRESHOLD_SUBTRANS_CLOG_OPT)
> > > just before this Assert? Sure, we can keep this for extra safety, but
> > > I don't see the need for it.
> >
> > I don't have strong feelings about it.
> >
>
> Okay, in that case, I am planning to push this patch [1] tomorrow
> morning unless I see any other comments. I am also planning to
> backpatch this through 10 where it got introduced,
>
This was introduced in 11, so pushed and backpatched through 11.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-12-17 04:45:17 | Re: Windows port minor fixes |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-12-17 04:40:49 | Re: Allow cluster owner to bypass authentication |