Re: Historic snapshot doesn't track txns committed in BUILDING_SNAPSHOT state
| От | cca5507 |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Historic snapshot doesn't track txns committed in BUILDING_SNAPSHOT state |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | tencent_FA60D4EE3E14ACF0B936396551260A4FFD05@qq.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Historic snapshot doesn't track txns committed in BUILDING_SNAPSHOT state ("cca5507" <cca5507@qq.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Historic snapshot doesn't track txns committed in BUILDING_SNAPSHOT state
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
- I re-read your comments in [0] and it looks like you've concern about
- the 2 "if" I'm proposing above and the fast forward handling. Is that the case
- or is your fast forward concern unrelated to my proposals?
In your proposals, we will just return when fast forward. But I think we need
handle XLOG_HEAP2_NEW_CID or XLOG_HEAP_INPLACE even if we are fast
forwarding as it decides whether the snapshot will track the transaction or not.
During fast forward, if there is a transaction that generates XLOG_HEAP2_NEW_CID
but no XLOG_XACT_INVALIDATIONS(I'm not sure), the snapshot won't track this
transaction in your proposals, I think it's wrong from a build snapshot perspective.
Although we don't decode anything during fast forward, the snapshot might be
serialized to disk when CONSISTENT, it would be better to keep the snapshot correct.
- Not sure what happened but it looks like your reply in [0] is not part of the
- initial thread [1], but created a new thread instead, making the whole
- conversation difficult to follow.
I'm not sure what happened but I attach the new thread to the CF:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/49/5029
--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: