Re: Reject WAIT FOR earlier in transaction-snapshot mode

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reject WAIT FOR earlier in transaction-snapshot mode
Date: 2026-09-10 17:40:00
Message-ID: CAN12+Y+j+aKihcuE7ruGn-rYp_=AAxifLJz+BDsu+Nb2EJb+Uw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > Not critically important but note that the PopActiveSnapshot and
> > InvalidateCatalogSnapshot call and the comment about "giving up if there
> > is still an active or registered snapshot" have a close relationship; I
> > think it would make sense to keep them together. I would add your new
> > test-and-ereport just before the PopActiveSnapshot() call, to avoid
> > breaking that.
>
> Good catch. +1 for doing that.

Sure, that works. See the attached.

I think as this is an error reporting bug, maybe we should backpatch to 19?

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-Fix-WAIT-FOR-rejection-errors.patch application/octet-stream 4.7 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2026-09-10 17:40:07 Re: PGQ catalog representation and pg_dump support
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2026-09-10 17:37:38 Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) can crash a logical decoding session