04.04.2014 10:46, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
Never told this. Instead I've agreed that such argument as avoiding
additional atomic ops is always important. But it's definitely more
important inside engine in time critical part of it.
In this case shouldn't vio.cpp:realoc_record() to be reworked
14.04.2014 20:21, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
In this case shouldn't vio.cpp:realoc_record() to be reworked as well to avoid
allocations?
It extends the record only when required (new format is longer than the
prior one). It's not something happening often for a single table.
Dmitry
Hi!
I localized the commit who caused this bug, but so far I'm unable to
fix. It's this one:
Date: Mon Feb 28 10:11:37 2011 +
Additional patch for CORE-3362 : Cursors should ignore changes made
by the same statement
AFAIU, the commit is not a problem per se, but exposed something
14.04.2014 20:40, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
I localized the commit who caused this bug, but so far I'm unable to
fix.
Actually, on official snapshot 31021 it also work without error.
--
WBR, SD.
--
On 14/04/2014 16:19, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
14.04.2014 20:40, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
I localized the commit who caused this bug, but so far I'm unable to
fix.
Actually, on official snapshot 31021 it also work without error.
Try to commit after the EXECUTE BLOCK. It may be
14.04.2014 21:26, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
Try to commit after the EXECUTE BLOCK. It may be that.
Yes, now I see the crash. According to stack trace I would guess that
update_in_place()
didn't expand delta-backversion to full one or just didn't clean the flag.
--
WBR, SD.
In any case the best fix would be to raise error when MERGE is attempting to
update the
same record second time. It'll make it standard conformant.
--
WBR, SD.
--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly
On 14/04/2014 16:58, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
In any case the best fix would be to raise error when MERGE is attempting
to update the
same record second time. It'll make it standard conformant.
But don't the error can happen in another situations, say, subsequent
updates?
Adriano
14.04.2014 22:03, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
But don't the error can happen in another situations, say, subsequent
updates?
I would say - no. Subsequent updates cannot call VIO_modify() with the same
rpb two
times in row.
But you are right: rpb_delta flag appeared without
