Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression

From: Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression
Date: 2023-01-27 00:14:57
Message-ID: CAAhFRxh+M8GJnk8srj3D3cF9XVy38xjRE9BqKH+4ekzk1iZhPQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Indeed, it seems like this behavior makes pg_xact_status() basically
> useless as things stand.
>

If we agree that xid allocation is not something persistent, let's fix
the test? We can replace a check with select * from pg_class or,
maybe, add an amcheck run.
As far as I recollect, this test was introduced to test this new
function in 857ee8e391f.

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-01-27 00:21:16 Re: Partition key causes problem for volatile target list query
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-01-27 00:09:36 Re: improving user.c error messages