On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 09:12 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I concur that the idea is that we deal at replay with the fact that the
> snapshot lags behind. At replay, any locks/XIDs in the snapshot that
> have already been committed/aborted are ignored. For any locks/XIDs
> taken just after the
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> * LogStandbySnapshot is merest fantasy: no guarantee that either the
>> XIDs list or the locks list will be consistent with the point in WAL
>> where it will get inserted. What's worse, locking things down enough
>> to g
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> * LogStandbySnapshot is merest fantasy: no guarantee that either the
> XIDs list or the locks list will be consistent with the point in WAL
> where it will get inserted. What's worse, locking things down enough
> to guarantee consistency would