| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash |
| Date: | 2012-07-02 04:04:37 |
| Message-ID: | 6A46D6EC-CD7E-4F41-9DED-C7CAEB079887@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 1, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> However, I'm a bit worried by the "if (!FirstSnapshotSet)" restriction
> in GetLatestSnapshot. Are we sure that enum comparisons could never
> happen without a snapshot already being set? What's the point of
> throwing an error there anyway, as opposed to letting it redirect to
> GetTransactionSnapshot?
I don't know whether it should set the transaction snapshot or just r
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-07-02 04:07:01 | Re: XX000: enum value 117721 not found in cache for enum enumcrash |
| Previous Message | Darren Duncan | 2012-07-01 23:54:58 | Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views |