Re: assertion in 9.4 with wal_level=logical
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: assertion in 9.4 with wal_level=logical |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140418145114.GA1706@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: assertion in 9.4 with wal_level=logical (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-04-18 16:44:55 +0200, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-04-17 17:40:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> For once, this looks more like a problem in logical decoding, which is > >> trying to assert about the tuple being updated; the assertion failing is > >> the one added a week ago about not palloc'ing in a critical section. > > > > It's this (older) assertion in HeapTupleHeaderGetCmax(): > > > > Assert(TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId(HeapTupleHeaderGetUpdateXid(tup))); > > > > That can allocate memory if xmax is a multixact... Does anybody have a > > better idea to solve this than adding a CritSectionCount == 0 && in > > there? > > Blech. Isn't that just nerfing the assertion? Not precicisely sure what you mean, but the only memory allocation in HeapTupleHeaderGetCmax() and log_heap_new_cid() is that Assert(). And that's the only "forbidden" thing in that codepath. Now, we could alternatively restructure the codepaths so they pass in xmax from outside the critical section, but I had a quick look and the risk/complications from that seems bigger than the assertion buys us there. I don't have a better idea unfortunately :( Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: