Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 28297.1341173928@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I think the problem is that load_enum_cache_data() uses
>> GetTransactionSnapshot() rather than GetLatestSnapshot().
> That would only make the race condition window smaller (ie, hard
> to reproduce manually like this, but not gone).
No, wait, we made ALTER TYPE ADD VALUE PreventTransactionChain so that
uncommitted enum OIDs could never get into tables or indexes. So I
think you're right, forcing a new snapshot to be used would fix this.
However, I'm a bit worried by the "if (!FirstSnapshotSet)" restriction
in GetLatestSnapshot. Are we sure that enum comparisons could never
happen without a snapshot already being set? What's the point of
throwing an error there anyway, as opposed to letting it redirect to
GetTransactionSnapshot?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: