Re: Wrong assert in TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Wrong assert in TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+E5uKMcds_kJ_3zq5RzswnDA9q8QLdD-AF7mBktoWBVQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Wrong assert in TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Wrong assert in TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 8:44 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 4:32 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > and then, within an if(): > > > > /* > > * We don't try to do group update optimization if a process has > > * overflowed the subxids array in its PGPROC, since in that case we > > * don't have a complete list of XIDs for it. > > */ > > Assert(THRESHOLD_SUBTRANS_CLOG_OPT <= PGPROC_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS); > > > > Even if these weren't redundant, it can't make sense to test such a > > static condition only within an if? Is it possible this was actually > > intended to test something different? > > Based on the comment, I imagine it might've been intended to read > Assert(nsubxids <= PGPROC_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS). > Do you think we need such an Assert after having StaticAssert for (THRESHOLD_SUBTRANS_CLOG_OPT <= PGPROC_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS) and then an if statement containing (nsubxids <= THRESHOLD_SUBTRANS_CLOG_OPT) just before this Assert? Sure, we can keep this for extra safety, but I don't see the need for it. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: