Re: SSI bug?
От | Dan Ports |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SSI bug? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20110301000306.GL10115@csail.mit.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SSI bug? (Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: SSI bug?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
An updated patch to address this issue is attached. It fixes a couple issues related to use of the backend-local lock table hint: - CheckSingleTargetForConflictsIn now correctly handles the case where a lock that's being held is not reflected in the local lock table. This fixes the assertion failure reported in this thread. - PredicateLockPageCombine now retains locks for the page that is being removed, rather than removing them. This prevents a potentially dangerous false-positive inconsistency where the local lock table believes that a lock is held, but it is actually not. - add some more comments documenting the times when the local lock table can be inconsistent with reality, as reflected in the shared memory table. This patch also incorporates Kevin's changes to copy locks when creating a new version of a tuple rather than trying to maintain a linkage between different versions. So this is a patch that should apply against HEAD and addresses all outstanding SSI bugs known to Kevin or myself. Besides the usual regression and isolation tests, I have tested this by running DBT-2 on a 16-core machine to verify that there are no assertion failures that only show up under concurrent access. Dan -- Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: