On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Coleman <jtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:51 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Updated patch attached. I changed the wording to be about conflicting > > locks rather than a single lock type, added a link to the conflicting > > locks table, and fixed a few sgml syntax issues in the original. > > > > I see error while compiling this patch on HEAD. See the below error: > /usr/bin/xmllint --path . --noout --valid postgres.sgml > postgres.sgml:833: element xref: validity error : IDREF attribute > linkend references an unknown ID > "mvcc-locking-tables-table-lock-compatibility" > make: *** [check] Error 4 > > The tag id mvcc-locking-tables-table-lock-compatibility is wrong.
My apologies; I'd fixed that on my local copy before sending my last email, but I must have somehow grabbed the wrong patch file to attach to the email. > The > other problem I see is the wrong wording in one of the literals. I > have fixed both of these issues and slightly tweaked one of the > sentence. See the updated patch attached. On which version, are you > preparing this patch? I see both HEAD and 9.4 has the problems fixed > by me. > > Let me know what you think of attached? I think we can back-patch > this patch. What do you think? Does anyone else have an opinion on > this patch especially if we see any problem in back-patching this? The attached looks great! I was working on HEAD for the patch, but this concern has been an issue for quite a long time. We were running into it on 9.6 in production, for example. And given how frequently it seems like there are large-scale production issues related to auto vacuum, I think any amount of back patching we can do to make that footgun less likely would be a good thing. James Coleman
