| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Some problems of recovery conflict wait events |
| Date: | 2020-03-04 04:27:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20200304042759.GC2593@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 01:13:19PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Yeah, so 0001 patch sets existing wait events to recovery conflict
> resolution. For instance, it sets (PG_WAIT_LOCK | LOCKTAG_TRANSACTION)
> to the recovery conflict on a snapshot. 0003 patch improves these wait
> events by adding the new type of wait event such as
> WAIT_EVENT_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_SNAPSHOT. Therefore 0001 (and 0002) patch
> is the fix for existing versions and 0003 patch is an improvement for
> only PG13. Did you mean even 0001 patch doesn't fit for back-patching?
I got my eyes on this patch set. The full patch set is in my opinion
just a set of improvements, and not bug fixes, so I would refrain from
back-backpatching.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-04 04:41:05 | Re: Cast to uint16 in pg_checksum_page() |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-03-04 04:21:44 | Re: logical replication empty transactions |