Re: 7.4.5 losing committed transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: 7.4.5 losing committed transactions
Date
Msg-id 8333.1096082704@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 7.4.5 losing committed transactions  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
> I guess nobody ever relied that heavily on data to be persistent at the 
> microsecond the NOTIFY arrives ...

Sure they have.

In theory you cannot see a NOTIFY before the sending transaction
commits, because the sender is holding a lock on pg_notify and you can't
even find out that you've been notified until he releases it.

Your idea that the COMMIT WAL record is getting dropped would fit the
facts, but I really am having a hard time believing it.  Why would the
COMMIT record be more prone to loss than any other record?  All the
cases I have seen so far have the right number of non-COMMIT records in
the log, so the bogus transaction is not getting lost altogether.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 7.4.5 losing committed transactions
Next
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: 'TID index'