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 alrea
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.
It is strange, but on my fresh build script from the ticket is executed
without any error.
--
WBR, SD.
-
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.
--
L
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 ma
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 Bo
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 visi
10 matches
Mail list logo
