| From: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists() |
| Date: | 2021-09-29 11:12:02 |
| Message-ID: | be17b55d-6282-e2e1-ecca-b2b717979ffb@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 9/29/21 12:59 PM, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
> Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 06:55, Drouvot, Bertrand
> <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> escreveu:
>
> I'm also inclined to #1.
>
> I have a stupid question, why duplicate PushActiveSnapshot?
> Wouldn't one function be better?
>
> PushActiveSnapshot(Snapshot snap, int as_level);
>
> Sample calls:
> PushActiveSnapshot(GetTransactionSnapshot(),
> GetCurrentTransactionNestLevel());
> PushActiveSnapshot(queryDesc->snapshot,
> GetCurrentTransactionNestLevel());
> PushActiveSnapshot(GetTransactionSnapshot(), portal->createSubid);
I would say because that could "break" existing extensions for example.
Adding a new function prevents "updating" existing extensions making use
of PushActiveSnapshot().
Thanks
Bertrand
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-09-29 11:18:40 | Re: Trap errors from streaming child in pg_basebackup to exit early |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-09-29 11:07:37 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |