Re: [HACKERS] StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtrans links incorrectly

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtrans links incorrectly
Дата
Msg-id 18171.1493134128@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtranslinks incorrectly  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtranslinks incorrectly
Список pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I can't see any reason now why overwriteOK should exist at all. I'm
> guessing that the whole "overwriteOK" idea was an incorrect response
> to xids appearing where they shouldn't have done because of the
> mistake you just corrected. So I will now remove the parameter from
> the call.

Seems reasonable, but I don't like the logic change you made in
SubTransSetParent; you broke the former invariant, for non-Assert
builds, that the target pg_subtrans entry is guaranteed to have
the correct value on exit.  I do like fixing it to not dirty the
page unnecessarily, but I'd suggest that we write it like
if (*ptr != parent){    Assert(*ptr == InvalidTransactionId);    *ptr = parent;
SubTransCtl->shared->page_dirty[slotno]= true;}
 
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password
Следующее
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] TAP tests - installcheck vs check