| From: | cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Historic snapshot doesn't track txns committed in BUILDING_SNAPSHOT state |
| Date: | 2024-08-13 10:07:49 |
| Message-ID: | tencent_87C84CE1211C38DB8D8646159ED5EEA6640A@qq.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
- IIUC your "fast forward" concern is not related to this particular thread but you
- think it's already an issue on the master branch (outside of the BUILDING_SNAPSHOT
- handling we are discussing here), is that correct? (that's also what your coding
- changes makes me think of). If so, I'd suggest to open a dedicated thread for that
- particular "fast forward" point and do the coding in the current thread as if the
- fast forward is not an issue.
- Does that make sense?
Yes.
But I think the v4-0001 in [1] is fine.
Let's see what others think.
--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/tencent_925A991463194F3C97830C3BB7D0A2C2BD07%40qq.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2024-08-13 10:23:32 | Re: Optimize mul_var() for var1ndigits >= 8 |
| Previous Message | Ajay Pal | 2024-08-13 09:52:43 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |