Tom Lane wrote:
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I propose to do the following in my lazy XID assignment patch - can
anyone see a hole in that?
One comment is that at the time we make an entry into smgr's
pending-deletes list, I think we might not have acquired an XID yet
--- if I understand your patch correctly, a CREATE TABLE would acquire
an XID when it makes its first catalog insertion, and that happens
after creating the on-disk table file. So it seems like a good idea
for smgr itself to trigger acquisition of an XID before it makes a
pending-deletes entry. This ensures that you can't have a situation
where you have deletes to record and no XID; otherwise, an elog
between smgr insertion and catalog insertion would lead to just that.
I wonder a bit about the whole special-casing
of COMMITs/ABORTs with pending delete, though. A crash might always leave
stray file around, so there ought to be a way to clean them up anyway.
Still, for now I'll go with your suggestion, and force XID assignment
in the smgr.
.) Rename ProcLastRecEnd to XactLastRecEnd, and reset when starting
a new toplevel transaction.
I'm not very happy with that name for the variable, because it looks
like it might refer to the last transaction-controlled record we
emitted, rather than the last record of any type. Don't have a really
good suggestion though --- CurXactLastRecEnd is the best I can do.
Hm.. don't have a good suggestion, either - the reason I want to rename
it is that ProcLastRecEnd doesn't sound like it's be reset at transaction
One thought here is that it's not clear that we really need a concept of
transaction-controlled vs not-transaction-controlled xlog records
anymore. In CVS HEAD, the *only* difference no_tran makes is whether
to set MyLastRecPtr, and you propose removing that variable. This
seems sane to me --- the reason for having the distinction at all was
Vadim's plan to implement transaction UNDO by scanning its xlog records
backwards, and that idea is as dead as a doornail. So we could simplify
matters conceptually if we got rid of any reference to such a
I've thinking about keeping XLOG_NO_TRAN, and doing
in xlog.c as a safety measure. We can't make that assertion
unconditionally, I think, because nextval() won't force XID
assigment, but might do XLogInsert.
greetings, Florian Pflug
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly