On 23 January 2017 at 12:34, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 20 January 2017 at 21:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> One option would be to add another limit Xid which advances before the
>> truncation but which is not used for other decisions other than limiting
>> what can users consult.
>
> This could b
On 20 January 2017 at 21:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> One option would be to add another limit Xid which advances before the
> truncation but which is not used for other decisions other than limiting
> what can users consult.
This could be useful for other things, but it's probably heavier than n
On 20 January 2017 at 05:32, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/19/17 10:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Also, I wonder whether we should not in vacuum.c change the order of the
>>> calls of SetTransactionIdLimit() and SetMultiXactIdLimit() as well, just
>>> to keep everything consistent.
>>
>> I am
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/19/17 10:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Also, I wonder whether we should not in vacuum.c change the order of the
> >> calls of SetTransactionIdLimit() and SetMultiXactIdLimit() as well, just
> >> to keep everything consistent.
> >
> > I am wary of doing that. The
On 1/19/17 10:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Also, I wonder whether we should not in vacuum.c change the order of the
>> calls of SetTransactionIdLimit() and SetMultiXactIdLimit() as well, just
>> to keep everything consistent.
>
> I am wary of doing that. The current coding is well battle-teste
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/29/16 4:28 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > On 29 December 2016 at 16:51, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> On 28 December 2016 at 22:16, Petr Jelinek
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> About the patch, it looks good to me for master with the minor exception
> >>> that:
> +
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> >> Also, I wonder whether we should not in vacuum.c change the order of the
> >> calls of SetTransactionIdLimit() and SetMultiXactIdLimit() as well, just
> >> to keep everything consist
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Also, I wonder whether we should not in vacuum.c change the order of the
>> calls of SetTransactionIdLimit() and SetMultiXactIdLimit() as well, just
>> to keep everything consistent.
>
> I am wary of doing that.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Also, I wonder whether we should not in vacuum.c change the order of the
> calls of SetTransactionIdLimit() and SetMultiXactIdLimit() as well, just
> to keep everything consistent.
I am wary of doing that. The current coding is well battle-tested by
now, but doing thing
On 12/29/16 4:28 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 29 December 2016 at 16:51, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 28 December 2016 at 22:16, Petr Jelinek
>> wrote:
>>
>>> About the patch, it looks good to me for master with the minor exception
>>> that:
+ appendStringInfo(buf, "pageno %d, xid
On 29 December 2016 at 16:51, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 28 December 2016 at 22:16, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
>
>> About the patch, it looks good to me for master with the minor exception
>> that:
>>> + appendStringInfo(buf, "pageno %d, xid %u",
>>> + trunc.pageno, trun
On 28 December 2016 at 22:16, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> About the patch, it looks good to me for master with the minor exception
> that:
>> + appendStringInfo(buf, "pageno %d, xid %u",
>> + trunc.pageno, trunc.oldestXid);
>
> This should probably say oldestXid instead
On 28/12/16 15:01, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> There's a minor race between commit_ts SLRU truncation and concurrent
> commit_ts lookups, where a lookup can check the lower valid bound xid
> without knowing it's already been truncated away. This would result in
> a SLRU lookup error.
>
> It'
13 matches
Mail list logo
