On 15 April 2016 at 20:01, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-04-15 19:59:06 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > For me, the issue is that we need to do something to catch bugs. The > > existing code does not have any test at all to check whether we are doing > > the wrong thing - it just lets the wrong thing happen. > > But sending the message, without assigning an xid, *IS* the right thing > to do here? We shouldn't assign an xid, and we need to send the message > out to the standbys. > > > > Fixing it by forcing a new behaviour might be the right thing to do going > > forwards, but I don't much like the idea of forcing new behaviour in back > > branches. It might fix this bug, but can easily cause others. > > What's your alternative? Assigning an xid in the middle of vacuum isn't > ok, breaking vacuum isn't either? >
In my understanding we have two choices for this bug 1) assign an xid so it forces sending a message (message plus xid) 2) send a message without assigning an xid (message only) (1) seems like it is worse for backpatching, IMHO, though I am willing to hear other thoughts or options -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
