Re: Historic snapshot doesn't track txns committed in BUILDING_SNAPSHOT state

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 07:32:42
Message-ID: tencent_FA60D4EE3E14ACF0B936396551260A4FFD05@qq.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

- I re-read your comments in [0] and it looks like you've concern about
- the 2 "if" I'm proposing above and the fast forward handling. Is that the case
- or is your fast forward concern unrelated to my proposals?

In your proposals, we will just return when fast forward. But I think we need
handle&nbsp;XLOG_HEAP2_NEW_CID or&nbsp;XLOG_HEAP_INPLACE even if we are fast
forwarding as it decides whether the snapshot will track the transaction or not.

During fast forward, if there is a transaction that generates XLOG_HEAP2_NEW_CID
but no XLOG_XACT_INVALIDATIONS(I'm not sure), the snapshot won't track this
transaction in your proposals, I think it's wrong from a build snapshot perspective.

Although we don't decode anything during fast forward, the snapshot might be
serialized to disk when CONSISTENT, it would be better to keep the snapshot correct.

- Not sure what happened but it looks like your reply in [0] is not part of the
- initial thread [1], but created a new thread instead, making the whole
- conversation difficult to follow.

I'm not sure what happened but I attach the new thread to the CF:

https://commitfest.postgresql.org/49/5029

--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Xiaoran Wang 2024-08-13 07:38:55 Re: [patch] Imporve pqmq
Previous Message 胡常齐 2024-08-13 07:26:41 Re: Re: PG buildfarm member cisticola