| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: old_snapshot_threshold allows heap:toast disagreement |
| Date: | 2016-07-29 03:34:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20160729033455.cy6eg3mbrxboaxak@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-07-28 23:08:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I think just iterating through the active snapshots would have been
> > fine. Afaics there's no guarantee that the first active snapshot pushed
> > is the relevant one - in contrast to registered one, which are ordered
> > by virtue of the heap.
>
> I think the oldest snapshot has to be on the bottom of the stack; how not?
Well, one might push a previously acuired (and registered) snapshot onto
the stack. Afaics that'll only happen if the snapshot is already
registered, but I'm not sure.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-07-29 03:47:53 | Re: Wrong defeinition of pq_putmessage_noblock since 9.5 |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-07-29 03:18:32 | Re: Wrong defeinition of pq_putmessage_noblock since 9.5 |