On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
>> I think you make a good case for doing this.
>> However, I'm concerned that moving LogStandbySnapshot() in a backpatch
>> seems more risky than it's worth. We could easily introduce a new bug
>> into what we would all agree is a complex piece of code. Minimal
>> change seems best in this case.
> OTOH, we currently compute oldestActiveXid within LogStandbySnapshot().
> Your proposed patch changes that, which also carries a risk since something
> could depend on these values being in sync. Especially since both the logged
> snapshot and oldestActiveXid influence the snapshot tracking on the slave.
> But since you wrote most of that code, your judgement about the relative
> risks of these two approaches obviously out-weights mine.
We must move oldestActiveXid since that is the source of a bug. There
is no need to move LogStandbySnapshot(), so I am suggesting we don't
do that for the backpatch. I was going to implement it the way you
suggest in HEAD, since I agree that is a cleaner way.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-10-27 14:54:00|
|Subject: Re: Updated version of pg_receivexlog |
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2011-10-27 14:14:04|
|Subject: Re: Your review of pg_receivexlog/pg_basebackup|