| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists() |
| Date: | 2021-09-29 12:52:38 |
| Message-ID: | 202109291252.kkmwwix5tnlo@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Sep-29, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 08:12, Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>
> escreveu:
> > Adding a new function prevents "updating" existing extensions making use
> > of PushActiveSnapshot().
> >
> Valid argument of course.
> But the extensions should also fit the core code.
> Duplicating functions is very bad for maintenance and bloats the code
> unnecessarily, IMHO.
Well, there are 42 calls of PushActiveSnapshot currently, and only 6 are
updated in the patch. Given that six sevenths of the calls continue to
use the existing function and that it is less verbose than the new one,
that seems sufficient argument to keep it.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"How amazing is that? I call it a night and come back to find that a bug has
been identified and patched while I sleep." (Robert Davidson)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2006-03/msg00378.php
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-09-29 13:11:53 | Re: pgbench bug candidate: negative "initial connection time" |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-09-29 12:50:28 | Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists() |