Hi, On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 03:32:42PM +0800, cca5507 wrote: > 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 XLOG_HEAP2_NEW_CID or 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.
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? > > - 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: Unfortunately your last reply did start a new email thread again. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
