On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 09:12 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I concur that the idea is that we deal at replay with the fact that the
snapshot lags behind. At replay, any locks/XIDs in the snapshot that
have already been committed/aborted are ignored. For any locks/XIDs
taken just after the
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
* LogStandbySnapshot is merest fantasy: no guarantee that either the
XIDs list or the locks list will be consistent with the point in WAL
where it will get inserted. What's worse, locking things down enough
to guarantee
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
* LogStandbySnapshot is merest fantasy: no guarantee that either the
XIDs list or the locks list will be consistent with the point in WAL
where it will get inserted. What's worse, locking things down enough
to guarantee consistency would be
