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.
I've committed a slightly modified form of this patch. It was an outstanding bug, so delaying fix at this stage not worth it. I had in mind a slightly grander fix, but it's hardly a priority to polish the chrome on this one. Thanks for the bug report and fix. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
