| From: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] FailedAssertion in SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn |
| Date: | 2022-11-22 17:02:52 |
| Message-ID: | CACG=ezYGWK-tBsA1s=o4kcdNzYAsM8DAysSFr82ezPbU3kGFzw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I've attached a draft patch. To fix it, I think we can reset
> InitialRunningXacts and NInitialRunningXacts at FreeSnapshotBuilder()
> and add an assertion in AllocateSnapshotBuilder() to make sure both
> are reset.
>
Thanks for the patch. It works fine. I've tested this patch for 15 and 11
versions on x86_64 and ARM
and see no fails. But the function pg_current_xact_id added by 4c04be9b05ad
doesn't exist in PG11.
> Regarding the tests, the patch includes a new scenario to
> reproduce this issue. However, since the issue can be reproduced also
> by the existing scenario (with low probability, though), I'm not sure
> it's worth adding the new scenario.
>
AFAICS, the test added doesn't 100% reproduce this issue, so, maybe, it
does not worth it. But, I do not have a strong opinion here.
Let's add tests in a separate commit and let the actual committer to decide
what to do, should we?
--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2022-11-22 17:06:40 | Re: Slow standby snapshot |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-11-22 17:02:21 | Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file |