[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] snapshot too old, configured by time
From:       Kevin Grittner <kgrittn () gmail ! com>
Date:       2016-03-31 13:20:04
Message-ID: CACjxUsPp4qO+HodgDo-66Ukcmc-=WwaomR-2LQgufo5vJET2BA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> Just a note: I began looking at the tests, but finished looking at the
>> patch entirely at the end by curiosity. Regarding the integration of
>> this patch for 9.6, I think that bumping that to 9.7 would be wiser
>> because the patch needs to be re-written largely, and that's never a
>> good sign at this point of the development cycle.
>
> Not rewritten surelY?  It will need a very large mechanical change to
> existing BufferGetPage calls, but to me that doesn't equate "rewriting"
> it.

I'll submit patches later today to make the mechanical change to
the nearly 500 BufferGetPage() calls and to tweak to the 36 places
to use the new "test" flag with the new signature rather than
adding a line for the test.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: 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
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]