Re: Small Bug in GetConflictingVirtualXIDs
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Small Bug in GetConflictingVirtualXIDs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1263468462.26654.19743.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Small Bug in GetConflictingVirtualXIDs (Andres Freund <af@cybertec.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2009-12-27 at 20:11 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On Tuesday 22 December 2009 11:42:30 Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 03:19 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On Monday 21 December 2009 16:48:52 Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > Giving the drop database a snapshot is not the answer. I expect Andres > > > > to be able to fix this with a simple patch that would not effect the > > > > case of normal running. > > > > > > Actually its less simply than I had thought at first - I don't think the > > > code ever handled that correctly. > > > I might be wrong there, my knowledge of the involved code is a bit > > > sparse... The whole conflict resolution builds on the concept of waiting > > > for an VXid, but an idle backend does not have a valid vxid. Thats > > > correct, right? > > I don't see any mileage in making Startup process wait for an idle > > session, so no real reason to wait for others either. > So here is a small patch implementing that behaviour. On further testing, I received a re-connection from an automatic session retry. That shouldn't have happened, but it indicates the need for locking around the conflict handler. I had understood that to be placed elsewhere but that seems wrong now. This is a low priority item, so looking for a quick fix to allow time on other areas. Any objections? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: