Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1272392013.4161.7882.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 13:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > > v3 attached > > This patch changes KnownAssignedXidsRemove() so that failure to find > the target XID is elog(ERROR) (ie, a PANIC, since this is in the > startup process). Not in all cases. The code is correct, as far as I am aware from testing. > However, this comment is still there: > /* > * We can fail to find an xid if the xid came from a subtransaction that > * aborts, though the xid hadn't yet been reported and no WAL records have > * been written using the subxid. In that case the abort record will > * contain that subxid and we haven't seen it before. > */ > > WTF? Either the comment is wrong or this should not be an elog > condition. That section of code has been rewritten many times. I think it is now inaccurate and should be removed. I left it there because the unfortunate history of the project has been the removal of comments and then later rediscovery of the truth, sometimes more than once. I could no longer reproduce that error; someone else may know differently. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: