Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23207.1272399533@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 13:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> WTF? Either the comment is wrong or this should not be an elog >> condition. > That section of code has been rewritten many times. I think it is now > inaccurate and should be removed. I left it there because the > unfortunate history of the project has been the removal of comments and > then later rediscovery of the truth, sometimes more than once. I could > no longer reproduce that error; someone else may know differently. I haven't tested this, but it appears to me that the failure would occur in overflow situations. If we have too many subxacts, we'll generate XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT, which will cause the subxids to be removed from KnownAssignedXids[]. Then later when the top-level xact commits or aborts we'll try to remove them again as a consequence of processing the top-level's commit/abort record. No? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: