On Tuesday 22 December 2009 11:42:30 Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 03:19 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Monday 21 December 2009 16:48:52 Simon Riggs wrote: > > > Giving the drop database a snapshot is not the answer. I expect Andres > > > to be able to fix this with a simple patch that would not effect the > > > case of normal running. > > > > Actually its less simply than I had thought at first - I don't think the > > code ever handled that correctly. > > I might be wrong there, my knowledge of the involved code is a bit > > sparse... The whole conflict resolution builds on the concept of waiting > > for an VXid, but an idle backend does not have a valid vxid. Thats > > correct, right? > > Yes, that's correct. I'll take this one back then. So youre writing a fix or shall I?
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
