From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add the "snapshot too old" feature |
Date: | 2016-04-09 02:28:55 |
Message-ID: | 20160409022855.GA728723@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Add the "snapshot too old" feature
>
> This feature is controlled by a new old_snapshot_threshold GUC. A
> value of -1 disables the feature, and that is the default. The
> value of 0 is just intended for testing. Above that it is the
> number of minutes a snapshot can reach before pruning and vacuum
> are allowed to remove dead tuples which the snapshot would
> otherwise protect. The xmin associated with a transaction ID does
> still protect dead tuples. A connection which is using an "old"
> snapshot does not get an error unless it accesses a page modified
> recently enough that it might not be able to produce accurate
> results.
I think this formulation of TestForOldSnapshot as returning the Page it
checks is a bit strange; you seem to have done it that way only to be
able to write BufferGetPage in a reasonable manner. I vote for changing
both those macros into inline functions instead, pursuant to
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160409020835.GA727750%40alvherre.pgsql
and have TestForOldSnapshot return void.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-09 02:44:53 | pgsql: Move \crosstabview regression tests to a separate file |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-08 23:24:20 | pgsql: Support \crosstabview in psql |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2016-04-09 02:38:57 | Re: the buildfarm has measles |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2016-04-09 02:27:02 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |