From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com, y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Error "initial slot snapshot too large" in create replication slot |
Date: | 2022-09-13 07:10:59 |
Message-ID: | 20220913.161059.331955937797746838.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Tue, 13 Sep 2022 12:08:18 +0530, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:52 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > That function is called after the SnapBuild reaches
> > SNAPBUILD_CONSISTENT state ,or SnapBuildInitialSnapshot() rejects
> > other than that state. That is, IIUC the top-sub relationship of all
> > the currently running transactions is fully known to reorder buffer.
> > We need a comment about that.
>
> I don't think this assumption is true, any xid started after switching
> to the SNAPBUILD_FULL_SNAPSHOT and before switching to the
> SNAPBUILD_CONSISTENT, might still be in progress so we can not
> identify whether they are subxact or not from reorder buffer.
Yeah, I misunderstood that the relationship is recorded earlier
(how?). Thus it is not reliable in the first place.
I agree that the best way is oversized xip.
By the way, I feel that "is >= than" is redundant or plain wrong..
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-09-13 07:13:20 | Re: pg_basebackup's --gzip switch misbehaves |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2022-09-13 07:00:16 | Do we need to pass down nonnullable_vars when reducing outer joins? |