On 2013-10-07 17:07:16 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 07.10.2013 16:58, Andres Freund wrote: > >On 2013-10-07 06:44:19 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>Patch attached. Any objections to applying that Real Soon Now? > >>(When, exactly is the deadline to make today's minor release > >>cut-off?) > > > >Maybe it's overly careful, but I personally slightly vote for applying > >it after the backbranch releases. The current behaviour doesn't have any > >harsh consequences and mostly reproduceable in artifical scenarios and > >the logic here is complex enough that we might miss something. > > Well, it's fairly harsh if the feature isn't working as advertised.
Well, you need to have a predicate lock on a tuple that's getting frozen (i.e. hasn't been written to for 50mio+ xids) and you need to have an update during the time that predicate lock is held. That's not too likely without explicit VACUUM FREEZEs interleaved there somewhere. > >A day just doesn't leave much time to noticing any issues. > > It's less than ideal, I agree, but it doesn't seem better to me to just > leave the bug unfixed for another minor release. Even if we sit on this for > another few months, I don't think we'll get any meaningful amount of extra > testing on it. Yea, maybe. Although HEAD does get some testing... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
