On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:51 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Updated patch attached. I changed the wording to be about conflicting
> > locks rather than a single lock type, added a link to the conflicting
> > locks table, and fixed a few sgml syntax issues in the original.
> >
>
> I see error while compiling this patch on HEAD. See the below error:
> /usr/bin/xmllint --path . --noout --valid postgres.sgml
> postgres.sgml:833: element xref: validity error : IDREF attribute
> linkend references an unknown ID
> "mvcc-locking-tables-table-lock-compatibility"
> make: *** [check] Error 4
>
> The tag id mvcc-locking-tables-table-lock-compatibility is wrong.
My apologies; I'd fixed that on my local copy before sending my last
email, but I must have somehow grabbed the wrong patch file to attach
to the email.
> The
> other problem I see is the wrong wording in one of the literals. I
> have fixed both of these issues and slightly tweaked one of the
> sentence. See the updated patch attached. On which version, are you
> preparing this patch? I see both HEAD and 9.4 has the problems fixed
> by me.
>
> Let me know what you think of attached? I think we can back-patch
> this patch. What do you think? Does anyone else have an opinion on
> this patch especially if we see any problem in back-patching this?
The attached looks great!
I was working on HEAD for the patch, but this concern has been an
issue for quite a long time. We were running into it on 9.6 in
production, for example. And given how frequently it seems like there
are large-scale production issues related to auto vacuum, I think any
amount of back patching we can do to make that footgun less likely
would be a good thing.
James Coleman