On 2014-01-31 16:41:33 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 03:02:36PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > On 2013-10-04 15:15:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > >> Andres, are you (or is anyone) going to try to fix this assertion > > >> failure? > > > > > > I think short term replacing it by IsTransactionOrTransactionBlock() is > > > the way to go. Entirely restructuring how cache invalidation in the > > > abort path works is not a small task. > > > > Well, if we're going to go that route, how about something like the > > attached? I included the assert-change per se, an explanatory > > comment, and the test case that Noah devised to cause the current > > assertion to fail. > > Is there any plan to commit this?
IMO it has to be applied. Tom objected on the grounds that cache invalidation has to be fixed properly but that's a major restructuring of code that worked this way for a long time. So changing the Assert() to reflect that seems fair to me. I'd adapt the tests with a sentence explaining what they test, on a first look they are pretty obscure... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers