On 11 June 2018 at 17:56, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > I don't think this is a good idea. We shouldn't continue down the path > of having running xacts not actually running xacts, but rather go back > to including everything. The case presented in the thread didn't > actually do what it claimed originally, and there's a fair amount of > potential for the excluded xids to cause problems down the line. > > Especially not when the fixes should be backpatched. I think the > earlier patch should be reverted, and then the AEL lock release problem > should be fixed separately.
Since Greg has not reappeared to speak either way, I agree we should revert, though I will add comments to document this. I will do this today. Looks like we would need a multi-node isolation tester to formally test the AEL lock release, so I won't add tests for that. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
