| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Shelepanov <deniel1495(at)mail(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: collect_corrupt_items_vacuum.patch |
| Date: | 2022-10-12 05:14:59 |
| Message-ID: | Y0ZNU8v0bYIHc5cj@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 09:47:19PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 5:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Maybe we need a different function for pg_visibility to call?
> > If we want ComputeXidHorizons to serve both these purposes, then it
> > has to always deliver exactly the right answer, which seems like
> > a definition that will be hard and expensive to achieve.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking along similar lines.
>
> I'm also kind of wondering why these calculations use
> latestCompletedXid. Is that something we do solely to reduce locking?
> The XIDs of running transactions matter, and their snapshots matter,
> and the XIDs that could start running in the future matter, but I
> don't know why it matters what the latest completed XID is.
Daniel, it seems to me that this thread is waiting for some input from
you, based on the remarks of Tom and Robert. Are you planning to do
so? This is marked as a bug fix, so I have moved this item to the
next CF for now.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-12 05:17:53 | Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-12 05:10:15 | Re: Error "initial slot snapshot too large" in create replication slot |