On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote:
>> I think you make a good case for doing this. >> >> However, I'm concerned that moving LogStandbySnapshot() in a backpatch >> seems more risky than it's worth. We could easily introduce a new bug >> into what we would all agree is a complex piece of code. Minimal >> change seems best in this case. > > OTOH, we currently compute oldestActiveXid within LogStandbySnapshot(). > Your proposed patch changes that, which also carries a risk since something > could depend on these values being in sync. Especially since both the logged > snapshot and oldestActiveXid influence the snapshot tracking on the slave. > > But since you wrote most of that code, your judgement about the relative > risks of these two approaches obviously out-weights mine. We must move oldestActiveXid since that is the source of a bug. There is no need to move LogStandbySnapshot(), so I am suggesting we don't do that for the backpatch. I was going to implement it the way you suggest in HEAD, since I agree that is a cleaner way. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
