On Monday 21 December 2009 16:48:52 Simon Riggs wrote:
> Giving the drop database a snapshot is not the answer. I expect Andres
> to be able to fix this with a simple patch that would not effect the
> case of normal running.
Actually its less simply than I had thought at first - I don't think the code
ever handled that correctly.
I might be wrong there, my knowledge of the involved code is a bit sparse...
The whole conflict resolution builds on the concept of waiting for an VXid, but
an idle backend does not have a valid vxid. Thats correct, right?
Sure, the code should be modifyable to handle that code mostly transparently
(simply ignoring a invalid localTransactionId when the database id is valid),
but ...
I am inclined to just unconditionally kill the users of the database. Its not
like that would be an issue in production. I cant see a case where its
important to run a session to its end on a database which was dropped on the
master.
Opinions on that?
Andres
