Re: Parallel scan with SubTransGetTopmostTransaction assert coredump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Borisov
Subject Re: Parallel scan with SubTransGetTopmostTransaction assert coredump
Date
Msg-id CALT9ZEHh6AiK4=Dh1XwBfJ7Cj1ru4Uzpj892La9KDPcFzjXD0Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel scan with SubTransGetTopmostTransaction assert coredump  (Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel scan with SubTransGetTopmostTransaction assert coredump  (Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

Please, avoid using decimal based values.

128 is multiple of 64.

It's true that 128 is better to use than 120 but the main problem is not in the value but in the fact we never get 
CurrentRunningXacts->subxid_overflow = suboverflowed; with value more than 120. This solves the problem but it doesn't seem the right way to fix the issue. Instead it's better to process suboverflowed state which is legit itself  not resulting getting the crash on the Assert. So the discussion of "better" value doesn't seem related to the problem. It is for demonstration only.

--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Race condition in recovery?
Next
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: Re: Add ZSON extension to /contrib/