On Sunday 27 December 2009 21:04:43 Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sun, 2009-12-27 at 20:11 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 December 2009 11:42:30 Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 03:19 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > On Monday 21 December 2009 16:48:52 Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > Giving the drop database a snapshot is not the answer. I expect > > > > > Andres to be able to fix this with a simple patch that would not > > > > > effect the case of normal running. > > > > > > > > Actually its less simply than I had thought at first - I don't think > > > > the code ever handled that correctly. > > > > I might be wrong there, my knowledge of the involved code is a bit > > > > sparse... The whole conflict resolution builds on the concept of > > > > waiting for an VXid, but an idle backend does not have a valid vxid. > > > > Thats correct, right? > > > > > > I don't see any mileage in making Startup process wait for an idle > > > session, so no real reason to wait for others either. > > > > So here is a small patch implementing that behaviour. > > OK, thanks. I have also written something, as mentioned. Will review. Thats why I had asked in another mail ;-) But I have learned a bit more about pg while writing that patch so its fine for me at least ;-)
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers