From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | petrum(at)gmail(dot)com,pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14208: Inconsistent code modification - 3 |
Date: | 2016-06-30 17:00:19 |
Message-ID: | CBBF3E57-7C53-4AB0-9C5A-0D5A1BC3131D@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On June 30, 2016 9:59:07 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On 2016-06-30 12:51:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> But doesn't the code stanza just above this loop pull that spillage
>>> back in?
>
>> If so, sure, it pulls changes back in, but only the first
>> static const Size max_changes_in_memory = 4096;
>> ones. We should never reconstruct a whole large transaction in
>memory...
>
>OK, so the failure case is not "empty top level transaction", but
>"top level transaction small enough to not have spilled", plus a
>spilled subtransaction, correct?
That's how it looks from afar, without having investigated in depth.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-06-30 20:42:26 | Re: BUG #14220: pg_get_expr() with an incorrect relation id crashes the server |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-30 16:59:07 | Re: BUG #14208: Inconsistent code modification - 3 |