On 25 April 2017 at 16:28, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I can't see any reason now why overwriteOK should exist at all. I'm
>> guessing that the whole "overwriteOK" idea was an incorrect response
>> to xids appearing where they shouldn't have done because of the
>> mistake you just corrected. So I will now remove the parameter from
>> the call.
>
> Seems reasonable, but I don't like the logic change you made in
> SubTransSetParent; you broke the former invariant, for non-Assert
> builds, that the target pg_subtrans entry is guaranteed to have
> the correct value on exit. I do like fixing it to not dirty the
> page unnecessarily, but I'd suggest that we write it like
>
> if (*ptr != parent)
> {
> Assert(*ptr == InvalidTransactionId);
> *ptr = parent;
> SubTransCtl->shared->page_dirty[slotno] = true;
> }
OK, thanks. I'll commit that tomorrow.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
