On Tuesday 22 December 2009 11:42:30 Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 03:19 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 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?
> I don't see any mileage in making Startup process wait for an idle
> session, so no real reason to wait for others either.
So here is a small patch implementing that behaviour.
Andres
