Hi, On 2022-11-16 14:22:01 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:30 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > On 2022-11-15 16:20:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:08 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > nor do we enforce in an obvious place that we > > > > don't already hold a snapshot. > > > > > > > > > > We have a check for (FirstXactSnapshot == NULL) in > > > RestoreTransactionSnapshot->SetTransactionSnapshot. Won't that be > > > sufficient? > > > > I don't think that'd e.g. catch a catalog snapshot being held, yet that'd > > still be bad. And I think checking in SetTransactionSnapshot() is too late, > > we've already overwritten MyProc->xmin by that point. > > > > So, shall we add the below Asserts in SnapBuildInitialSnapshot() after > we have the Assert for Assert(!FirstSnapshotSet)? > Assert(FirstXactSnapshot == NULL); > Assert(!HistoricSnapshotActive());
I don't think that'd catch a catalog snapshot. But perhaps the better answer for the catalog snapshot is to just invalidate it explicitly. The user doesn't have control over the catalog snapshot being taken, and it's not too hard to imagine the walsender code triggering one somewhere. So maybe we should add something like: InvalidateCatalogSnapshot(); /* about to overwrite MyProc->xmin */ if (HaveRegisteredOrActiveSnapshot()) elog(ERROR, "cannot build an initial slot snapshot when snapshots exist") Assert(!HistoricSnapshotActive()); I think we'd not need to assert FirstXactSnapshot == NULL or !FirstSnapshotSet with that, because those would show up in HaveRegisteredOrActiveSnapshot(). Greetings, Andres Freund
