On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 9:02 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Plan is to commit this later on today, barring objections.
Pushed, thanks.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:34 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> WFM.
Attached is v3.
Plan is to commit this later on today, barring objections.
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan
v3-0001-Standardize-rmgrdesc-recovery-conflict-XID-output.patch
Description: Binary data
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:25 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > Anyway, worth calling this out directly in these comments IMV. We're
> > addressing two closely related things that assign opposite meanings to
> > InvalidTransactionId, which is rather confusing.
>
> It makes sense to call this out, but
Hi,
On 2022-11-16 15:37:40 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 3:27 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > What are "snapshotConflictHorizon format XIDs"? I guess you mean format in
> > the
> > sense of having the semantics of snapshotConflictHorizon?
>
> Yes. That is the only
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 3:27 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> The "(also...) formulation seems a bit odd. How about "an obsolescent heap
> tuple that the caller is physically removing, e.g. via HOT pruning or index
> deletion." or such?
Okay, WFM.
> > + * snapshotConflictHorizon format values are how
Hi,
On 2022-11-16 14:14:30 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> /*
> - * If 'tuple' contains any visible XID greater than latestRemovedXid,
> - * ratchet forwards latestRemovedXid to the greatest one found.
> - * This is used as the basis for generating Hot Standby conflicts, so
> - * if a tuple was
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:48 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Okay, let's go with snapshotConflictHorizon. I'll use that name in the
> next revision, which I should be able to post tomorrow.
Attached is a somewhat cleaned up version that uses that symbol name
for everything.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On 2022-11-15 20:48:56 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 5:29 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > If we want to focus on the mvcc affects we could just go for something like
> > snapshotConflictHorizon or such.
>
> Okay, let's go with snapshotConflictHorizon. I'll use that name in
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 5:29 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> If we want to focus on the mvcc affects we could just go for something like
> snapshotConflictHorizon or such.
Okay, let's go with snapshotConflictHorizon. I'll use that name in the
next revision, which I should be able to post tomorrow.
--
Hi,
On 2022-11-15 13:54:24 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:29 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > ... I strongly dislike latestCommittedXid. That seems at least as misleading
> > as latestRemovedXid and has the danger of confusion with latestCompletedXid
> > as you mention.
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:29 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> ... I strongly dislike latestCommittedXid. That seems at least as misleading
> as latestRemovedXid and has the danger of confusion with latestCompletedXid
> as you mention.
> How about latestAffectedXid?
I get why you don't care for
Hi,
I like the idea of this, but:
On 2022-11-15 10:24:05 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I'm not necessarily that attached to the name latestCommittedXid. It
> is more accurate, but it's also a little bit too similar to another
> common XID symbol name, latestCompletedXid. Can anyone suggest an
Most recovery conflicts are generated in REDO routines using a
standard approach these days: they all call
ResolveRecoveryConflictWithSnapshot() with a latestRemovedXid argument
taken directly from the WAL record. Right now we don't quite present
this information in a uniform way, even though REDO
13 matches
Mail list logo
