On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 01:29:31PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > Or we could just enforce that you have an active snapshot whenever you > modify a catalog with a TOAST table. That's simpler, but it requires extra > work in some paths (and probably comments to point out that we're only > pushing an active snapshot to satisfy an assertion).
I may be wrong, but I suspect that enforcing the check without being column-based is the right way to go and that this is going to catch more errors in the long-term than being a maintenance burden. So I would keep the snapshot check even if it's a bit aggressive, still it's useful. And we are not talking about that may code paths that need to be switched to require a snapshot, as well. Most of the ones you have mentioned on this thread are really particular in the ways they do transaction handling. I suspect that it may also catch out-of-core issues with extensions doing direct catalog manipulations. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
