RE: test_decoding assertion failure for the loss of top-sub transaction relationship
От | kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com |
---|---|
Тема | RE: test_decoding assertion failure for the loss of top-sub transaction relationship |
Дата | |
Msg-id | TYAPR01MB58666BD6BE24853269624282F5419@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: test_decoding assertion failure for the loss of top-sub transaction relationship (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: test_decoding assertion failure for the loss of top-sub transaction relationship
Re: test_decoding assertion failure for the loss of top-sub transaction relationship |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Amit, Thanks for giving comments! > Did you get this new assertion failure after you applied the patch for > the first failure? Because otherwise, how can you reach it with the > same test case? The first failure is occurred only in the HEAD, so I did not applied the first patch to REL14 and REL15. This difference is caused because the commit [Fix catalog lookup...] in REL15(272248a) and older is different from the HEAD one. In order versions SnapBuildXidSetCatalogChanges() has been added. In the function a transaction will be marked as containing catalog changes if the transaction is in InitialRunningXacts, and after that the relation between sub-top transactions is assigned based on the parsed->subxact. The marking avoids the first failure, but the assignment triggers new failure. > About patch: > else if (sub_needs_timetravel) > { > - /* track toplevel txn as well, subxact alone isn't meaningful */ > + elog(DEBUG2, "forced transaction %u to do timetravel due to one of > its subtransaction", > + xid); > + needs_timetravel = true; > SnapBuildAddCommittedTxn(builder, xid); > > Why did you remove the above comment? I think it still makes sense to retain it. Fixed. Best Regards, Hayato Kuroda FUJITSU LIMITED
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: