"Drouvot, Bertrand" writes:
> On 9/30/21 7:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> PS: Memo to self: in the back branches, the new field has to be
>> added at the end of struct Portal.
> out of curiosity, why?
Sticking it into the middle would create an ABI break for any
extension code that's looking at struc
"Drouvot, Bertrand" writes:
> [ v2-0003-EnsurePortalSnapshotExists-failed-assertion.patch ]
Looking through this, I think you were overenthusiastic about applying
PushActiveSnapshotWithLevel. We don't really need to use it except in
the places where we're setting portalSnapshot, because other th
"Drouvot, Bertrand" writes:
> But make check is now failing on join_hash.sql, I have been able to
> repro with:
Oh, duh, should have thought a bit harder. createSubid is a sequential
subtransaction number; it's not the same as the as_level nesting level.
Probably the most effective way to hand
Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 15:01, Tom Lane escreveu:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2021-Sep-29, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> >> Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 08:12, Drouvot, Bertrand <
> bdrou...@amazon.com>
> >> escreveu:
> >> Duplicating functions is very bad for maintenance and bloats the co
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Sep-29, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>> Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 08:12, Drouvot, Bertrand
>> escreveu:
>> Duplicating functions is very bad for maintenance and bloats the code
>> unnecessarily, IMHO.
> Well, there are 42 calls of PushActiveSnapshot currently, and o
On 2021-Sep-29, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 08:12, Drouvot, Bertrand
> escreveu:
> > Adding a new function prevents "updating" existing extensions making use
> > of PushActiveSnapshot().
> >
> Valid argument of course.
> But the extensions should also fit the core code.
On 2021-Sep-28, Tom Lane wrote:
> 1. Provide a variant of PushActiveSnapshot that allows the caller
> to specify the as_level to use, and then have
> EnsurePortalSnapshotExists, as well as other places that create
> Portal-associated snapshots, use this with as_level equal to the
> Portal's create
Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 08:12, Drouvot, Bertrand
escreveu:
> Hi,
> On 9/29/21 12:59 PM, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
>
> Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 06:55, Drouvot, Bertrand <
> bdrou...@amazon.com> escreveu:
>
>> I'm also inclined to #1.
>>
> I have a stupid question, why duplicate PushActiv
Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 06:55, Drouvot, Bertrand
escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/28/21 6:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Drouvot, Bertrand" writes:
> >> Does it make sense (as it is currently) to set the ActiveSnapshot to
> >> NULL and not ensuring the same is done for ActivePortal->portalSnapshot?
"Drouvot, Bertrand" writes:
> Does it make sense (as it is currently) to set the ActiveSnapshot to
> NULL and not ensuring the same is done for ActivePortal->portalSnapshot?
I think that patch is just a kluge :-(
After tracing through this I've figured out what is happening, and
why you need to
"Drouvot, Bertrand" writes:
> I recently observed a failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists().
Hmm, interesting. If I take out the "update bdt2" step, so that the
exception clause is just COMMIT, then I get something different:
ERROR: portal snapshots (1) did not account for all active
11 matches
Mail list logo
