| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |
| Date: | 2016-04-01 14:45:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20160401144518.GA15568@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Attached is what I think you're talking about for the first patch.
> AFAICS this should generate identical executable code to unpatched.
> Then the patch to actually implement the feature would, instead
> of adding 30-some lines with TestForOldSnapshot() would implement
> that as the behavior for the other enum value, and alter those
> 30-some BufferGetPage() calls.
>
> Álvaro and Michael, is this what you were looking for?
Yes, this is what I was thinking, thanks.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-01 15:00:21 | Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e' |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-04-01 14:37:15 | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |