| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work |
| Date: | 2015-09-29 01:49:12 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoas3V6TsDUPa=yVfwMyu7k8ZmhO2yna5tQRsKs8=_MMAA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> There was discussion about making this a PANIC instead of a LOG, which I
> think is a good idea... but then there'd need to be some way to not PANIC if
> you were doing an upgrade.
I think you're worrying about a non-problem. This code has not been
back-patched prior to 9.5, and the legacy truncation code has been
removed in 9.5+. So it's a complete non-issue right at the moment.
If at some point we back-patch this further, then it potentially
becomes a live issue, but I would like to respectfully inquire what
exactly you think making it a PANIC would accomplish? There are a lot
of scary things about this patch, but the logic for deciding whether
to perform a legacy truncation is solid as far as I know.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-09-29 02:03:21 | Re: No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So! |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2015-09-29 00:36:52 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |