Re: [HACKERS] Breakage in trigger.c

2004-09-07 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Surely the sense of this is backwards, and it should be > > if (!(event->dte_event & TRIGGER_DEFERRED_CANCELED) && > !(event->dte_event & TRIGGER_DEFERRED_DONE && > TransactionIdIsValid(event->dte_done_xid) && >

Re: [HACKERS] Breakage in trigger.c

2004-09-06 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 05:55:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Finally, surely the "Mark the event done" case should advance >> prev_event? As-is the code is capable of messing up the list links. > Not sure. Why doesn't the other arm of that conditional

Re: [HACKERS] Breakage in trigger.c

2004-09-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 05:55:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I can't believe that the coding at trigger.c line 2010 ff is correct: > > /* > * Skip executing cancelled events, and events done by > * transactions that are not aborted. > */ > if (!(event->dte

[HACKERS] Breakage in trigger.c

2004-09-06 Thread Tom Lane
I can't believe that the coding at trigger.c line 2010 ff is correct: /* * Skip executing cancelled events, and events done by * transactions that are not aborted. */ if (!(event->dte_event & TRIGGER_DEFERRED_CANCELED) || (event->dte_event & T