On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think this is unsafe for shared catalogs.
>> I think so too. Thats why it uses IsMVCCSnapshot() to confirm when it
>> is safe to do so.
> Ah, you mean access to shared catalogs using MVCC snapshots.

Yeah.  This change would have the disadvantage of disabling HOT
cleanup for shared catalogs; I'm not sure whether that's a good
decision.

But now that you mention it, something seems funky about the other bit
you mention, too:

+			/* MVCC snapshots ignore other databases */
+			if (!allDbs &&
+				proc->databaseId != MyDatabaseId &&
+				proc->databaseId != 0)		/* always include WalSender */
+				continue;
+

It doesn't make sense for the RecentGlobalXmin calculation to depend
on whether or not the current snapshot is an MVCC snapshot, because
RecentGlobalXmin is a global variable not related to any particular
snapshot.  I don't believe it's safe to assume that RecentGlobalXmin
will only ever be used in conjunction with the most-recently-taken
snapshot.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: Not HOT enough at 2011-11-23 00:25:34 from Simon Riggs

Responses

• Re: Not HOT enough at 2011-11-23 14:25:10 from Simon Riggs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-11-23 14:01:50
	Subject: Re: Permissions checks for range-type support functions
Previous:	From: Florian Weimer	Date: 2011-11-23 11:04:47
	Subject: Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq