| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." |
| Date: | 2020-07-13 22:15:52 |
| Message-ID: | 2703956.1594678552@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> - If so, how? I would propose a new contrib module that we back-patch
>> all the way, because the VACUUM errors were back-patched all the way,
>> and there seems to be no advantage in making people wait 5 years for a
>> new version that has some kind of tooling in this area.
> While I agree that this would be a good and useful new contrib module to
> have, I don't think it would be appropriate to back-patch it into PG
> formally.
Yeah, I don't care for that either. That's a pretty huge violation of our
normal back-patching rules, and I'm not convinced that it's justified.
No objection to adding it as a new contrib module.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-07-13 22:28:36 | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-07-13 21:28:25 | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." |