| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect snapshots while promoting hot standby node when 2PC is used |
| Date: | 2021-10-01 05:11:15 |
| Message-ID: | YVaYc2Titlv8wnJD@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 09:37:17PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have been looking at all that for the last couple of days, and
> checked the code to make sure that relying on RecoveryInProgress() as
> the tipping point is logically correct in terms of virtual XID,
> snapshot build and KnownAssignedXids cleanup. This stuff is tricky
> enough that I may have missed something, but my impression (and
> testing) is that we should be safe.
A couple of months later, I have looked back at this thread and this
report. I have rechecked all the standby handling and snapshot builds
involving KnownAssignedXids and looked at all the phases that are
getting called until we call ShutdownRecoveryTransactionEnvironment()
to release these, and I don't think that there is a problem with the
solution proposed here. So I propose to move on and apply this
patch. Please let me know if there are any objections.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2021-10-01 05:27:42 | Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists() |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-10-01 04:51:16 | Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better |