Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("HaveRegisteredOrActiveSnapshot()", File: "toast_internals.c", Line: 670, PID: 19403)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I am wondering whether ffaa44cb559db332baeee7d25dedd74a61974203 bet on
> the wrong horse. When I invented CatalogSnapshot, I intended for it to
> be an ephemeral snapshot that we'd keep for as long as we could safely
> do so and then discard it as soon as there's any hint of a problem.
> But that commit really takes the opposite approach, trying to keep
> CatalogSnapshot valid for a longer period of time instead of just
> chucking it.

Not really following? ISTM the point of ffaa44cb5 was that if we don't
include the CatalogSnapshot in our advertised xmin, then the length
of time we can safely use it is *zero*.

> But there is no such code: GetOldestSnapshot() has only one caller.
> And I don't think we'd add more just to do something like that,
> because we have other mechanisms that are specifically designed for
> testing whether tuples are prunable that are better suited to such
> tasks. It should really only be used when you don't know which of the
> backend's current snapshots ought to be used for something, but are
> sure that using the oldest one will be good enough. And in that kind
> of situation, it's hard to see why using the catalog snapshot would
> ever be the right idea.

What if the reason we need a snapshot is to detoast some toasted item
we read from a catalog with the CatalogSnapshot? There might not be
any other valid snapshot, so I don't think I buy your argument here.

... Unless your argument is that the session should always have an
older non-catalog snapshot, which I'm not sure whether I buy or not.
But if we do believe that, then adding mechanisms to force it to be so
could be an alternative solution. But why is that better than what
we're doing?

regards, tom lane