Pavan Deolasee escribió:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that was plenty silly. Updated patch attached.
>
> Looks good me to, except for this warning:
Applied. Many thanks for the exhaustive testing.
--
Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, that was plenty silly. Updated patch attached.
>
>
Looks good me to, except for this warning:
snapmgr.c: In function 'RegisterSnapshot':
snapmgr.c:356: warning: unused variable 'snap'
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan D
Heikki Linnakangas escribió:
> I'm surprised you implemented RegisterSnapshotOnOwner by switching
> CurrentResourceOwner and calling RegisterSnapshot, rather than
> implementing RegisterSnapshot by calling RegisterSnapshotOnOwner(...,
> CurrentResourceOwner).
Yeah, that was plenty silly. U
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Alvaro Herrera escribió:
Yeah, we need two "at-commit" routines, one of which needs to be called
early. I'm prepping a patch.
Here it is ... the large object patch is also included. I've created
new functions to specify the resource owner to register a snapshot in;
now
Alvaro Herrera escribió:
> Yeah, we need two "at-commit" routines, one of which needs to be called
> early. I'm prepping a patch.
Here it is ... the large object patch is also included. I've created
new functions to specify the resource owner to register a snapshot in;
now that there are two ca
Pavan Deolasee escribió:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That's absolutely wrong. It'll complain about whatever snapshots the
> > owners still hold.
>
> You must be right; I don't understand that code much. But don't we expect
> the snapshots to be clea
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> That's absolutely wrong. It'll complain about whatever snapshots the
> owners still hold.
>
>
You must be right; I don't understand that code much. But don't we expect
the snapshots to be cleanly released at that point and
"Pavan Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. In CommitTransaction(), I think we should call AtEOXact_Snapshot *before*
> releasing the resource owners.
That's absolutely wrong. It'll complain about whatever snapshots the
owners still hold.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
Pavan Deolasee escribió:
> 2. In CommitTransaction(), I think we should call AtEOXact_Snapshot *before*
> releasing the resource owners. Otherwise, ResourceOwnerReleaseInternal
> complains about snapshot leak and then forcefully unregisters the snapshot.
> Later when AtEOXact_Snapshot is called, i
The following test flashes snapshot leak warning and subsequently dumps
core. Though this looks very similar to other bug report, this is a
different issue.
postgres=# BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE ;
BEGIN
postgres=# SAVEPOINT A;
SAVEPOINT
postgres=# SELECT count(*) from pg_class
10 matches
Mail list logo
