Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > I'd argue about this in the same direction I argued about
> > BufferGetPage() needing an LSN check that's applied separately: if it's
> > too easy for a developer to do the wrong thing (i.e. fail to apply the
> > separate LSN check after reading the page) then the routine should be
> > patched to do the check itself, and another routine should be offered
> > for the cases that explicitly can do without the check.
> >
> > I was eventually outvoted in the BufferGetPage() saga, though, so I'm
> > not sure that that discussion sets precedent.
>
> Oh... I don't recall this discussion. A quick lookup at the archives
> does not show me a specific thread either.
I mean Kevin patch for snapshot-too-old:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACjxUsPPCbov6DDPnuGpR%3DFmxHsjSn_MRi3rJYgvbRMCRfFz%2BA%40mail.gmail.com
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers