| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Hot standby, xlog_xact_assignment and unreported subxids. |
| Date: | 2009-10-14 11:43:46 |
| Message-ID: | 4AD5B972.6000408@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
In the hot standby patch, we have this comment in procarray.c:
> It is
> * important that the XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT record contain *all* subxids
> * not just those so far unreported because the sole purpose is to ensure
> * we can remove the xids from KnownAssignedXids.
As the patch stands, that's not what we do. We only include new subxids
in the XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT record that we haven't included in any
previous ones. I think that comment is just obsolete and should be
removed, but am I missing something?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot standby, xlog_xact_assignment and unreported subxids. |
| Date: | 2009-10-14 11:50:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1255521048.15590.8436.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 14:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In the hot standby patch, we have this comment in procarray.c:
>
> > It is
> > * important that the XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT record contain *all* subxids
> > * not just those so far unreported because the sole purpose is to ensure
> > * we can remove the xids from KnownAssignedXids.
>
> As the patch stands, that's not what we do. We only include new subxids
> in the XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT record that we haven't included in any
> previous ones.
That's the correct handling, in my view.
> I think that comment is just obsolete and should be
> removed, but am I missing something?
I agree it looks wrong. (Did I write that??)
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com