Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoajwTLHwqobeJM4zYH82uTSo+NXpW8iex3etrz5=8f-Mg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> In the meantime, I think my vote would be to remove AtEOXact_CatCache. > >> In all supported branches? > > Whatever we do about this issue, I don't feel a need to do it further > back than HEAD. It's a non-problem except in an assert-enabled build, > and we don't recommend running those for production, only development. Sure, but people still do testing and development against older branches - bug fixes, for example. It doesn't make much sense to me to leave code that we know does the wrong thing in the back branches. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: