| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE. |
| Date: | 2016-04-15 19:26:17 |
| Message-ID: | 27301.1460748377@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> In my understanding we have two choices for this bug
> 1) assign an xid so it forces sending a message (message plus xid)
> 2) send a message without assigning an xid (message only)
> (1) seems like it is worse for backpatching, IMHO, though I am willing to
> hear other thoughts or options
The problem with (1) is that it creates side-effects that could be bad;
Robert's already pointed out one close-to-show-stopper consequence,
and I have little confidence that there are not others. In general,
if we got here without assigning an xid, there's a reason.
I think the bottom line is that we misdesigned the WAL representation
by assuming that this sort of info could always be piggybacked on a
transaction commit record. It's time to fix that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-04-15 19:27:37 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new catalog called pg_init_privs |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-15 19:26:08 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new catalog called pg_init_privs |