Re: Lots of FSM-related fragility in transaction commit

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 08.12.2011 08:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So this is really a whole lot worse than our behavior was in pre-FSM
>> days, and it needs to get fixed.

> This bug was actually introduced only recently. Notice how the log says
> "consistent recovery state reached at 0/5D71BA8". This interacts badly
> with Fujii's patch I committed last week:

You're right, I was testing on HEAD not 9.1.x.

> That was harmless until last week, because reachedMinRecoveryPoint was
> not used for anything unless you're doing archive recovery and hot
> standby was enabled, but IMO the "consistent recovery state reached" log
> message was misleading even then. I propose that we apply the attached
> patch to master and backbranches.

Looks sane to me, though I've not tested to see what effect it has on
the case I was testing.

regards, tom lane