Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more.

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 12:33 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-03 14:32:09 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, but OTOH, not giving time to Kevin or others who might be
> > interested to support this work is also not fair. I think once
> > somebody comes up with patches for problems we can decide whether this
> > feature can be salvaged in back-branches or we need to disable it in a
> > hard-way. Now, if Kevin himself is not interested in fixing or nobody
> > shows up to help, then surely we can take the decision sooner but
> > giving time for a couple of weeks (or even till we are near for PG13
> > release) in this case doesn't seem like a bad idea.
>
> It'd certainly be great if somebody came up with fixes, yes. Even if we
> had to disable it in the back branches, that'd allow us to keep the
> feature around, at least.
>
> The likelihood of regressions even when the feature is not on does not
> seem that low.
>

Yeah, that is the key point. IIRC, when this feature got added Kevin
and others spent a lot of effort to ensure that point.

> But you're right, we'll be able to better judge it with
> fixes to look at.
>

I am hoping Kevin would take the lead and then others also can help.
Kevin, please do let us know if you are *not* planning to work on the
issues raised in this thread so that we can think of an alternative?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com