On Oct27, 2011, at 16:30 , Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: > >>> I think you make a good case for doing this. >>> >>> However, I'm concerned that moving LogStandbySnapshot() in a backpatch >>> seems more risky than it's worth. We could easily introduce a new bug >>> into what we would all agree is a complex piece of code. Minimal >>> change seems best in this case. >> >> OTOH, we currently compute oldestActiveXid within LogStandbySnapshot(). >> Your proposed patch changes that, which also carries a risk since something >> could depend on these values being in sync. Especially since both the logged >> snapshot and oldestActiveXid influence the snapshot tracking on the slave. >> >> But since you wrote most of that code, your judgement about the relative >> risks of these two approaches obviously out-weights mine. > > We must move oldestActiveXid since that is the source of a bug. There > is no need to move LogStandbySnapshot(), so I am suggesting we don't > do that for the backpatch. I was going to implement it the way you > suggest in HEAD, since I agree that is a cleaner way.
Sound good. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
