Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists()
От | Drouvot, Bertrand |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | d0805e5a-f225-b955-fe6d-85505a6004ea@amazon.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists() (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 9/27/21 9:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com> writes: >> I recently observed a failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists(). > Hmm, interesting. Thanks for looking at it! > If I take out the "update bdt2" step, so that the > exception clause is just COMMIT, then I get something different: > > ERROR: portal snapshots (1) did not account for all active snapshots (0) > CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function inline_code_block line 8 at COMMIT FWIW, I just gave it a try and it looks like this is also "fixed" by the proposed patch. Does it make sense (as it is currently) to set the ActiveSnapshot to NULL and not ensuring the same is done for ActivePortal->portalSnapshot? Or does it mean we should not reach a state where we set ActiveSnapshot to NULL while ActivePortal->portalSnapshot is not already NULL? Thanks Bertrand
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: