On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 06:48:08PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:57:02PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > A short answer is that a normal table's heap doesn't go through > > systable_getnext_ordered(). That function is used both for cases > > where the check should not be made, like toast_delete_datum(), and > > cases where it should, like toast_fetch_datum(). > > > > Since this keeps coming up, I'll produce a patch this way. I'm > > skeptical, but maybe it will look better than I think it will. I > > should be able to post that by Friday. > > This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send > a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status > update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past due for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by 2016-07-20 03:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team ownership without further notice. [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
