From: Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp>
Cc: Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov
Cc: heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SSI bug?
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:41:29 -0500
Message-ID: <20110222024129.GC74913@csail.mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110221234236.4635E19D574@mail.netbsd.org>
References: <4D616C14020000250003AD9A@gw.wicourts.gov>
<20110221234236.4635E19D574@mail.netbsd.org>
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:42:36PM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> i tested ede45e90dd1992bfd3e1e61ce87bad494b81f54d + ssi-multi-update-1.patch
> with my application and got the following assertion failure.
>
> #4 0x0827977e in CheckTargetForConflictsIn (targettag=0xbfbfce78)
> at predicate.c:3657
> 3657 Assert(locallock != NULL);
It looks like CheckTargetForConflictsIn is making the assumption that
the backend-local lock table is accurate, which was probably even true
at the time it was written. Unfortunately, it hasn't been for a while,
and the new changes for tuple versions make it more likely that this
will actually come up.
The solution is only slightly more complicated than just removing the
assertion. Unless Kevin beats me to it, I'll put together a patch later
tonight or tomorrow. (I'm at the airport right now.)
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: drkp@csail.mit.edu, yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: SSI bug?
In-Reply-To: <20110222024129.GC74913@csail.mit.edu>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox