| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: recent deadlock regression test failures |
| Date: | 2017-04-10 04:19:38 |
| Message-ID: | 11806.1491797978@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Here's a pair of draft patches for review:
I'll look at these in detail tomorrow, but:
> 2. pg-safe-snapshot-blocking-pids.patch, to provide an end-user
> function wrapping GetSafeSnapshotBlockingPids(). Kevin expressed an
> interest in that functionality, and it does seem useful: for example,
> someone might use it to investigate which backends are holding up
> pg_dump --serializable-deferrrable. This is a separate patch because
> you might consider it material for the next cycle, though at least
> it's handy for verifying that GetSafeSnapshotBlockingPids() is working
> correctly.
Personally I have no problem with adding this now, even though it
could be seen as a new feature. Does anyone want to lobby against?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2017-04-10 04:22:46 | Malformed Array Literal in PL/pgSQL Exception Block |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-04-10 04:15:18 | Re: recent deadlock regression test failures |