| From: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Alvaro Herrera' <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Date: | 2026-04-07 14:19:20 |
| Message-ID: | 225003.1775571560@localhost |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> 02. SnapBuildProcessRunningXacts
>
> Per my understanding, the db_specic snapshot can be also serialized. Is it
> possibility tha normal logical decoding system restores the snapshot and obtain
> the wrong result?
I don't think that the database-specific xl_running_xacts WAL record affects
what SnapBuildSerialize() writes to disk: the contents of builder->committed,
etc. is updated by decoding COMMIT and ABORT records.
On the other hand, with that kind of record, there's probably no reason to
call SnapBuildSerialize(). Good catch, thanks.
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2026-04-07 14:19:28 | Re: Better shared data structure management and resizable shared data structures |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2026-04-07 14:17:12 | Re: pg_plan_advice |