| From: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(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: | 2026-04-05 16:30:41 |
| Message-ID: | 24165.1775406641@localhost |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2026-Apr-05, Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> > ok, maybe just skip the whole cleanup in that special case.
>
> Hmm, should we make this test only in the db_specific case? Doing it
> unconditionally makes me a bit nervous (maybe because I don't fully
> understand historic snapshot building).
I thought about adding Assert(db_specific) in front of the new return
statement. So what you suggest makes sense to me.
As far as I understand, the xl_running_xacts record is not directly involved
in the snapshot build. Rather, the list of XIDs for snapshots is created and
updated by processing COMMIT and ABORT records.
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2026-04-05 16:35:34 | Re: pg_get__*_ddl consolidation |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2026-04-05 16:23:43 | Re: Better shared data structure management and resizable shared data structures |