| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add last commit LSN to pg_last_committed_xact() |
| Date: | 2022-01-18 17:50:10 |
| Message-ID: | 202201181750.znzvgme7ogru@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Jan-17, James Coleman wrote:
> I'd be happy to make it a separate GUC, though it seems adding an
> additional atomic access is worse (assuming we can convince ourselves
> putting this into the commit timestamps infrastructure is acceptable)
> given here we're already under a lock.
I was thinking it'd not be under any locks ... and I don't think it
belongs under commit timestamps either.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for
surely where thou typest "foo" someone someday shall type
"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" (5th Commandment for C programmers)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2022-01-18 18:20:22 | Re: docs: pg_replication_origin_oid() description does not match behaviour |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-01-18 17:49:16 | Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate? |