On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-06-21 11:45:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> > Now that I actually check with a non-relation object, I see pretty much >> > the same error. So probably if instead of some narrow bug fix what we >> > need is some general solution for all object types. I know this has >> > been discussed a number of times ... Anyway I see now that we should >> > not consider this a backpatchable bug fix, and I'm not doing the coding >> > either, at least not now. >> >> Discussed this with a couple of 2ndQ colleagues and it became evident >> that MVCC catalog scans probably make this problem much more prominent. >> So historical branches are not affected all that much, but it's a real >> issue on 9.4+. > > Hm. I don't see how those would make a marked difference. The snapshot > for catalogs scan are taken afresh for each scan (unless > cached). There'll probably be some difference, but it'll be small.
Yeah, I think the same. If those changes introduced a problem we didn't have before, I'd like to see a reproducible test case. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
