| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 01:53:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wznj9qSNXZ1P1uWTUD_FeaTezbUazb416EPwi4Qr_jR_6A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-09-08 02:00:57 | Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2023-09-08 01:24:22 | Re: SQL:2011 application time |