Tom Lane wrote:
> Having seen a couple recent reports of "could not access status of
> transaction" for old, not-obviously-corrupt transaction numbers, I went
> looking to see if I could find a way that the system could truncate CLOG
> before it's really marked all occurrences of old transaction numbers as
> known-dead or known-good.
>
> I found one.
I was starting to wonder about those reports, too. Actually I was thinking
about bringing this up as soon as I would find time. So I am glad you picked
that up yourself -- and found a problem already.
> I think what we ought to do to solve this problem permanently is to stop
...
>
> Comments?
Well, I am not able to comment here, but I can say I usually trust your
judgement.
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold
