| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work |
| Date: | 2015-09-29 08:48:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20150929084850.GD3474@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-09-28 21:48:00 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 9/28/15 8:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >If at some point we back-patch this further, then it potentially
> >becomes a live issue, but I would like to respectfully inquire what
> >exactly you think making it a PANIC would accomplish? There are a lot
> >of scary things about this patch, but the logic for deciding whether
> >to perform a legacy truncation is solid as far as I know.
>
> Maybe I'm confused, but I thought the whole purpose of this was to get rid
> of the risk associated with that calculation in favor of explicit truncation
> boundaries in the WAL log.
> Even if that's not the case, ISTM that being big and in your face about a
> potential data corruption bug is a good thing, as long as the DBA has a way
> to "hit the snooze button".
So we'd end up with a guc that everyone has to set while they
upgrade. That seems like a pointless hassle.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-09-29 08:49:10 | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |
| Previous Message | Torsten Zuehlsdorff | 2015-09-29 08:15:01 | Re: No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So! |