Re: snapbuild woes

On 2017-05-11 14:54:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-05-11 14:51:55 -0700, wrote:
> > On 2017-05-08 00:10:12 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I plan to commit the next pending patch after the back branch releases
> > > are cut - it's an invasive fix and the issue doesn't cause corruption
> > > "just" slow slot creation. So it seems better to wait for a few days,
> > > rather than hurry it into the release.
> >
> > Now that that's done, here's an updated version of that patch. Note the
> > new logic to trigger xl_running_xact's to be logged at the right spot.
> > Works well in my testing.
> >
> > I plan to commit this fairly soon, unless somebody wants a bit more time
> > to look into it.
> >
> > Unless somebody protests, I'd like to slightly revise how the on-disk
> > snapshots are stored on master - given the issues this bug/commit showed
> > with the current method - but I can see one could argue that that should
> > rather be done next release.
>
> As usual I forgot my attachement.

This patch also seems to offer a way to do your 0005 in, possibly, more
efficient manner. We don't ever need to assume a transaction is
timetravelling anymore. Could you check whether the attached, hasty,
patch resolves the performance problems you measured? Also, do you have
a "reference" workload for that?

Regards,

Andres