| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Assertion failure on hot standby |
| Date: | 2010-11-26 16:11:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1290787882.2981.35.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 17:53 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Hmm,
> looking at the code, we also allow RowShareLock and RowExclusiveLock
> in
> the standby. You can't actually insert/update/delete tuples or set
> xmax
> as SELECT FOR SHARE does on standby, though, so why do we allow that?
It was considered sensible to allow PREPARE on DML on a standby, which
required those lock levels. Archives...
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-11-26 16:11:58 | libpq/Makefile cleanup abandoned |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-11-26 15:53:29 | Re: Assertion failure on hot standby |