| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |
| Date: | 2022-08-03 23:19:41 |
| Message-ID: | 3260692.1659568781@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> I did rule out wanting to do the "xid + $X" check after reviewing some
> of the output. I think that both $X could end up varying, and it really
> feels like a bandaid.
It is that. I wouldn't feel comfortable with $X less than 100 or so,
which is probably sloppy enough to draw Robert's ire. Still, realizing
that what we want right now is a band-aid for 15beta3, I don't think
it's an unreasonable short-term option.
> Andres suggested upthread using "txid_current()" -- for the comparison,
> that's one thing I looked at. Would any of the XID info from
> "pg_control_checkpoint()" also serve for this test?
I like the idea of txid_current(), but we have no comparable
function for mxid do we? While you could get both numbers from
pg_control_checkpoint(), I doubt that's sufficiently up-to-date.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2022-08-04 00:46:28 | Re: enable/disable broken for statement triggers on partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2022-08-03 22:55:05 | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |