| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com, y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Error "initial slot snapshot too large" in create replication slot |
| Date: | 2022-09-13 01:30:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-sSbpHAvDg7gyaN5J2aaYEF4ycaSEAz0qfUJD_gM7n-eA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 3:22 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> It's not obvious to me that it's the right design (or even correct) to ask
> reorderbuffer about an xid being a subxid. Maybe I'm missing something, but
> why would reorderbuffer even be guaranteed to know about all these subxids?
Yeah, you are right, the reorderbuffer will only know about the
transaction for which changes got added to the reorder buffer. So
this seems not to be the right design idea.
>
> I wonder if a better fix here wouldn't be to allow importing a snapshot with a
> larger ->xid array. Yes, we can't do that in CurrentSnapshotData, but IIRC we
> need to be in a transactional snapshot anyway, which is copied anyway?
Yeah when I first found this issue, I thought that should be the
solution. But later it went in a different direction.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-09-13 01:39:59 | pgsql: Move any remaining files generated by pg_upgrade into an interna |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-09-13 01:06:23 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson - v12 |