X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CC29FB1F2 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:15:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94332-01 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:14:59 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [62.232.55.118]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3824A9FB1E0 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:15:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost.localdomain) by localhost.localdomain with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GNsvg-00050N-Ls; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:15:04 +0100 From: Gregory Stark To: Tom Lane Cc: Alvaro Herrera , ITAGAKI Takahiro , Bruce Momjian , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 In-Reply-To: <29128.1158244999@sss.pgh.pa.us> (Tom Lane's message of "Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:43:19 -0400") Organization: EnterpriseDB References: <20060808110913.50FA.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp> <200608260346.k7Q3k2g06954@momjian.us> <20060828181312.5638.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp> <13251.1157299738@sss.pgh.pa.us> <22080.1158198335@sss.pgh.pa.us> <87mz92so6n.fsf@enterprisedb.com> <27509.1158237711@sss.pgh.pa.us> <28167.1158241250@sss.pgh.pa.us> <28515.1158242279@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060914142222.GA525@alvh.no-ip.org> <29128.1158244999@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Draft-From: ("nnimap+webmail.enterprisedb.com:Inbox" 2558) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:15:04 +0100 Message-ID: <87psdyqy2v.fsf@enterprisedb.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.066 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200609/1114 X-Sequence-Number: 90643 Tom Lane writes: > --- and because the entries are surely added in increasing XID order, > such an array could be binary-searched. If they're only added if they write to disk then isn't it possible to add them out of order? Start a child transaction, start a child of that one and write to disk, then exit the grandchild and write to disk in the first child? I'm just going on your description, I'm not familiar with this part of the code at all. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com