On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 10:51:10AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 23:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> It is not complicated to
>> handle duplicates for xacts and subxacts however holding ProcArrayLock
>> for a longer time stresses me as it is already a bottleneck.
>
> I hadn't re
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 23:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:55:47PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > 1df21ddb looks OK to me and was simple enough to backpatch safely.
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> > Seems excessive to say that the WAL record is corrupt, it just contains
> >
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:55:47PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> 1df21ddb looks OK to me and was simple enough to backpatch safely.
Thanks for the feedback!
> Seems excessive to say that the WAL record is corrupt, it just contains
> duplicates, just as exported snapshots do. There's a few other imp
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 06:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:43:38AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Well, following the same kind of thoughts, txid_current_snapshot() uses
> > sort_snapshot() to remove all the duplicates after fetching its data
> > from GetSnapshotData(), s
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 7:09 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:43:38AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Well, following the same kind of thoughts, txid_current_snapshot() uses
> > sort_snapshot() to remove all the duplicates after fetching its data
> > from GetSnapshotData
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:43:38AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Well, following the same kind of thoughts, txid_current_snapshot() uses
> sort_snapshot() to remove all the duplicates after fetching its data
> from GetSnapshotData(), so wouldn't we want to do something about
> removal of duplicat
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:15:38PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Oct-22, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hm? My point is that this fix just puts a band-aid onto *one* of the
>> places that read a XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS. Which still leaves the contents
>> of WAL record corrupted. There's not even a not
On 2018-Oct-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-10-22 12:36:25 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2018-Oct-14, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-10-14 13:26:24 +, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > > Avoid duplicate XIDs at recovery when building initial snapshot
> >
> > > I'm unhapp
Hi,
On 2018-10-22 12:03:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> (moving to -hackers)
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:42:40AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm unhappy this approach was taken over objections. Without a real
> > warning.
>
> Oops, that was not clear to me. Sorry about that! I did no
Hi,
On 2018-10-22 12:36:25 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Oct-14, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2018-10-14 13:26:24 +, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > Avoid duplicate XIDs at recovery when building initial snapshot
>
> > I'm unhappy this approach was taken over objections. Without a rea
On 2018-Oct-14, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-10-14 13:26:24 +, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Avoid duplicate XIDs at recovery when building initial snapshot
> I'm unhappy this approach was taken over objections. Without a real
> warning. Even leaving the crummyness aside, did you check other
(moving to -hackers)
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:42:40AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm unhappy this approach was taken over objections. Without a real
> warning.
Oops, that was not clear to me. Sorry about that! I did not see you
objecting again after the last arguments I raised. The end of
12 matches
Mail list logo
