On 2016-07-13 10:06:52 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> > >>> I'm a bit confused, why aren't we simply adding LSN interlock > >>> checks for toast? Doesn't look that hard? Seems like a much more > >>> natural course of fixing this issue? > >> > >> I took some time trying to see what you have in mind, and I'm > >> really not "getting it". > > > > Isn't it possible if we initialize lsn and whenTaken in SnapshotToast > > when old_snapshot_threshold > 0 and add a check for > > HeapTupleSatisfiesToast in TestForOldSnapshot()? > > With that approach, how will we know *not* to generate an error > when reading the chain of tuples for a value we are deleting. Or > positioning to modify an index on toast data. Etc., etc. etc.
I'm not following. How is that different in the toast case than in the heap case? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
