From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("prev_first_lsn < cur_txn->first_lsn", File: "reorderbuffer.c", Line: 927, PID: 568639) |
Date: | 2022-10-21 02:31:22 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoCf1Q+2feZ8u7JhHfOrcV0FX+8uRPZJA2chyTsYq-g0fA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 6:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:40 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached patches for Change-3 with a test case. Please review them as well.
> >
>
> The patch looks mostly good to me apart from few minor comments which
> are as follows:
> 1.
> +# The last decoding restarts from the first checkpoint, and add
> invalidation messages
> +# generated by "s0_truncate" to the subtransaction. When decoding the
> commit record of
> +# the top-level transaction, we mark both top-level transaction and
> its subtransactions
> +# as containing catalog changes. However, we check if we don't create
> the association
> +# between top-level and subtransactions at this time. Otherwise, we
> miss executing
> +# invalidation messages when forgetting the transaction.
> +permutation "s0_init" "s0_begin" "s0_savepoint" "s0_insert"
> "s1_checkpoint" "s1_get_changes" "s0_truncate" "s0_commit" "s0_begin"
> "s0_insert" "s1_checkpoint" "s1_get_changes" "s0_commit"
> "s1_get_changes"
>
> The second part of this comment seems to say things more than required
> which makes it less clear. How about something like: "The last
> decoding restarts from the first checkpoint and adds invalidation
> messages generated by "s0_truncate" to the subtransaction. While
> processing the commit record for the top-level transaction, we decide
> to skip this xact but ensure that corresponding invalidation messages
> get processed."?
>
> 2.
> + /*
> + * We will assign subtransactions to the top transaction before
> + * replaying the contents of the transaction.
> + */
>
> I don't think we need this comment.
>
Thank you for the comment! I agreed with all comments and I've updated
patches accordingly.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v12-v15_v2-0001-Fix-executing-invalidation-messages-generated-by-.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.8 KB |
v11_v2-0001-Fix-executing-invalidation-messages-generated-by-.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-21 02:57:48 | Re: Getting rid of SQLValueFunction |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-10-21 02:26:45 | Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("prev_first_lsn < cur_txn->first_lsn", File: "reorderbuffer.c", Line: 927, PID: 568639) |