| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression |
| Date: | 2023-01-28 05:02:23 |
| Message-ID: | 3625699.1674882143@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Reading Andres's comments and realising how relatively young
> txid_status() is compared to txid_current(), I'm now wondering if we
> shouldn't just disclaim the whole thing in back branches.
My thoughts were trending in that direction too. It's starting
to sound like we aren't going to be able to make a fix that
we'd be willing to risk back-patching, even if it were completely
compatible at the user level.
Still, the idea that txid_status() isn't trustworthy is rather
scary. I wonder whether there is a failure mode here that's
exhibitable without using that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-01-28 05:34:20 | Re: lockup in parallel hash join on dikkop (freebsd 14.0-current) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-01-28 04:56:58 | Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression |