Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> So if MaxTransactionId+1 overflows to zero, OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE becomes -1.
>> Or a very high value, if the result of that is unsigned, as at least MSVC
>> seems to interpret it given the other warning I got. If it's interpreted as
>> a large unsigned value, then the SLRU_PAGES_PER_SEGMENT * 0x10000 - 1 value
>> wins. That's what what we had prior to this patch, in beta2, so we're back
>> to square one. If it's interpreted as signed -1, then bad things will happen
>> as soon as the SLRU is used.
> Should we, then, consider rewrapping beta3?
At this point I think the actual choice we'd have is to abandon beta3
and try again next week with a beta4. I'm trying to figure out whether
this bug is serious enough to warrant that, but it's not clear to me.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
