| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speedup twophase transactions |
| Date: | 2016-09-07 00:09:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRcA7kCwgows_36XQZHuo_y=n3+1pMfptr0ojr1dcXHOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> On 06 Sep 2016, at 12:03, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>>> Oh, I was preparing new version of patch, after fresh look on it. Probably, I should
>>> said that in this topic. I’ve found a bug in sub transaction handling and now working
>>> on fix.
>>
>> What's the problem actually?
>
> Handling of xids_p array in PrescanPreparedTransactions() is wrong for prepared tx's in memory.
> Also I want to double-check and add comments to RecoveryInProgress() checks in FinishGXact.
>
> I’ll post reworked patch in several days.
Could you use as a base the version I just sent yesterday then? I
noticed many mistakes in the comments, for example many s/it's/its/
and did a couple of adjustments around the code, the goto next_file
was particularly ugly. That will be that much work not do to again
later.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-09-07 00:19:05 | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2016-09-06 23:55:09 | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |