| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ERROR: cannot GetMultiXactIdMembers() during recovery |
| Date: | 2015-05-15 18:19:36 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jLv=rFMCXM+V8m9WiTT+8tspmyeh2FtxC6u+3nW6shoTw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 May 2015 at 19:03, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > Alternatively we could make MultiXactIdIsRunning() return false < 9.3
> > when in recovery. I think that'd end up fixing things, but it seems
> > awfully fragile to me.
>
> Hm, why fragile? It seems a pretty decent answer -- pre-9.3, it's not
> possible for a tuple to be "locked" in recovery, is it? I mean, in the
> standby you can't lock it nor update it; the only thing you can do is
> read (select), and that is not affected by whether there is a multixact
> in it.
>
It can't return true and won't ever change for <9.3 so I don't see what the
objection is.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-15 18:23:53 | Re: WALWriteLock contention |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2015-05-15 18:06:29 | Re: Changes to backup.sgml |