Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

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).  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
reportedand no WAL records have * been written using the subxid. In that case the abort record will * contain that
subxidand we haven't seen it before. */
 

WTF?  Either the comment is wrong or this should not be an elog
condition.
        regards, tom lane