On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-08-12 11:04:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM, MauMau <maumau...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I've tracked down the real root cause. The fix is very simple. Please >> >>> check the attached one-liner patch. >> > >> >> I'd support back-porting that commit to 9.1 and 9.2 as a fix for this >> >> problem. As the commit message says, it's dead simple. >> > >> > While I have no great objection to back-porting Heikki's patch, it seems >> > like a very large stretch to call this a root-cause fix. At best it's >> > band-aiding one symptom in a rather fragile way. >> >> Yeah, that's true, but I'm not clear that we have another >> back-patchable fix, so doing something almost-certainly-harmless to >> alleviate the immediate pain seems worthwhile. > > Isn't that still leaving the very related issue of waits due to hot > pruning open?
Yes. Do you have a back-patchable solution for that? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
