Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
>> * Allow "snapshot too old" error, to prevent bloat >> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1361166406.1897609.1424371443904.JavaMail.yahoo%40mail.yahoo.com >> talked about a new version that afaics never materialized >> => Returned with feedback > > As mentioned earlier, this is a committer's patch and if Kevin > shows up with a new patch based on that discussion which others > can live with, then I'm for having the capability over not. As > such, not sure if RFW is the right state for it to be in at this > point. Unfortunately, other emergencies have cut into my time for finishing this for 9.5, and it seems more appropriate for a "start of release cycle" patch than a "just before beta" patch; so look for that in the first CF for the next release. (Of course, if someone wants to run with it and wants to argue for 9.5, I'll do what I can to ensure it is solid.) The current status, as I see it, are that there are two things that need to be done: (1) The GUC needs to be changed from number of transactions to time-based. This is partly done, and could probably be finished in a couple full-time days. (2) Every index AM needs to insert a TestForOldSnapshot() call after each BufferGetPage() call which is used for a search or scan. (Those used to position for inserts or other internal purposes don't need this treatment.) The btree AM is already done, but no other AM has been started. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: 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
