On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 3:56 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:45 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Indeed. There's a lot of things wrong with it. We have reproducers for > > creating wrong query results. Nobody has shown interest in fixing the > > problems, for several years by now. It costs users that *do not* use the > > feature performance (*). > > > > I think we're doing our users a disservice by claiming to have this feature. > > > > I don't think a lot of the existing code would survive if we were to create > > a > > newer version, more maintainable / reliable, version of the feature. > > I raised this at the recent developer meeting and the assembled > hackers agreed. Does anyone think we *shouldn't* drop the feature? I > volunteered to write a removal patch for v17, so here's a first run > through to find all the traces of this feature. In this first go I > removed everything I could think of, but we might want to keep some > vestiges. I guess we might want to keep the registered error > class/code? Should we invent a place where we keep stuff like #define > TestForOldSnapshot(...) expanding to nothing for some amount of time, > for extensions? I dunno, I bet extensions doing stuff that > sophisticated already have a bunch of version tests anyway. I suppose > keeping the GUC wouldn't really be helpful (if you're using it, you > probably want to know that it isn't available anymore and think about > the implications for your application).
Done. I hope we get "snapshot too old" back one day.
