Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date
Msg-id 23207.1272399533@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: CP949 for EUC-KR?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance