| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica |
| Date: | 2023-09-08 02:00:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKP5v8XkrvxEnayi-Op-_mSfURb6e-m_MstpKtj_JZjXA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 1:53 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:58 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I hope we get "snapshot too old" back one day.
>
> Thanks for working on this. Though I wonder why you didn't do
> something closer to a straight revert of the feature. Why is nbtree
> still passing around snapshots needlessly?
>
> Also, why are there still many comments referencing the feature?
> There's the one above should_attempt_truncation(), for example.
> Another appears above init_toast_snapshot(). Are these just
> oversights, or was it deliberate? You said something about retaining
> vestiges.
Oh. Not intentional. Looking now...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-09-08 02:48:14 | Re: Impact of checkpointer during pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-09-08 01:53:04 | Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica |