| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_serial early wraparound |
| Date: | 2017-09-01 11:12:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=0qBw9EAn7HER7C1m=_XRzYHg8Hf2w2Y4oi+oP3ZUxhMQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
>> <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> You claim that SLRUs now support five digit segment name, while in slru.h
>>> at current master I see the following:
>>>
>>> * Note: slru.c currently assumes that segment file names will be four hex
>>> * digits. This sets a lower bound on the segment size (64K transactions
>>> * for 32-bit TransactionIds).
>>> */
>
> I've now complained about that comment in a separate thread.
>
>> It's not urgent, it's just cleanup work, so I've now moved it to the
>> next commitfest. I will try to figure out a new way to demonstrate
>> that it works correctly without having to ask a review[er] to disable
>> any assertions. Thanks again.
Rebased again, now with a commit message. That assertion has since
been removed (commit ec99dd5a) so the attached test script can once
again be used to see the contents of pg_serial as the xid goes all the
way around, if you build with TEST_OLDSERXID defined so that
predicate.c forces information about xids out to pg_serial.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| ssi-slru-wraparound-v3.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.5 KB |
| ssi-slru-wraparound-test.sh | application/x-sh | 1.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-09-01 11:44:30 | Re: Statement-level rollback |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-09-01 10:17:46 | Re: Crash on promotion when recovery.conf is renamed |