| From: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Why we still see some reports of "could not access transaction status" |
| Date: | 2004-10-14 06:17:41 |
| Message-ID: | 007b01c4b1b5$83b30140$ad01a8c0@zaphod |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Having seen a couple recent reports of "could not access status of
> transaction" for old, not-obviously-corrupt transaction numbers, I went
> looking to see if I could find a way that the system could truncate CLOG
> before it's really marked all occurrences of old transaction numbers as
> known-dead or known-good.
>
> I found one.
I was starting to wonder about those reports, too. Actually I was thinking
about bringing this up as soon as I would find time. So I am glad you picked
that up yourself -- and found a problem already.
> I think what we ought to do to solve this problem permanently is to stop
...
>
> Comments?
Well, I am not able to comment here, but I can say I usually trust your
judgement.
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | gevik | 2004-10-14 07:49:47 | embedded postgresql |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2004-10-14 05:21:23 | Re: Two-phase commit security restrictions |