On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 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
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> I changed the definition to
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> 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
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> 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
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
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 larg
Tom Lane wrote:
> So, what are the consequences if a compiler allows the expression
> to overflow to zero? Does this mean that beta3 is dangerously
> broken?
The risk to anyone not using serializable transactions is most
definitely zero. I've been running with this patch in my daily
tests (i
On 08.07.2011 17:29, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
On 08.07.2011 15:22, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I'm getting a bunch of warnings on Windows related to this:
.\src\backend\storage\lmgr\predicate.c(768): warning C4307: '+' :
integral constant overflow
The
On 08.07.2011 16:45, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 08.07.2011 15:22, Kevin Grittner wrote:
MaxTransactionId / OLDSERXID_ENTRIESPERPAGE
Hmm, that seems more correct to me anyway. We are trying to
calculate which page xid MaxTransactionId would be stored on, if
the S
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 08.07.2011 15:22, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> I'm getting a bunch of warnings on Windows related to this:
>>> .\src\backend\storage\lmgr\predicate.c(768): warning C4307: '+' :
>>> integral constant overflow
>> The part of the expression
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 08.07.2011 15:22, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>MaxTransactionId / OLDSERXID_ENTRIESPERPAGE
>
> Hmm, that seems more correct to me anyway. We are trying to
> calculate which page xid MaxTransactionId would be stored on, if
> the SLRU didn't have a size limit. You ca
On 08.07.2011 15:22, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I'm getting a bunch of warnings on Windows related to this:
.\src\backend\storage\lmgr\predicate.c(768): warning C4307: '+' :
integral constant overflow
The part of the expression which is probably causing this:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I'm getting a bunch of warnings on Windows related to this:
>> .\src\backend\storage\lmgr\predicate.c(768): warning C4307: '+' :
>>integral constant overflow
The part of the expression which is probably causing this:
(MaxTransactionId + 1) / OLDSERXID_ENTR
12 matches
Mail list logo
