Robert Haas wrote:
> Regarding 0003, I'm still very much not convinced that it's a good
> idea to apply this to 9.3 and 9.4. This patch changes the way we do
> truncation in those older releases; instead of happening at a
> restartpoint, it happens when oldestMultiXid advances. I admit that I
> don't see a specific way that that can go wrong, but there are so many
> different old versions with slightly different multixact truncation
> behaviors that it seems very hard to be sure that we're not going to
> make things worse rather than better by introducing yet another
> approach to the problem. I realize that you disagree and will
> probably commit this to those branches anyway. But I want it to be
> clear that I don't endorse that.
Noted. I am not sure about changing things so invasively either TBH.
The interactions of this stuff with other parts of the system are very
complicated and it's easy to make a mistake that goes unnoticed until
some weird scenario is run elsewhere. (Who would have thought that
things would fail when a basebackup takes 12 hours to take and you have
a custom preemptive tuple freeze script in crontab).
> I wish more people were paying attention to these patches. These are
> critical data-corrupting bugs, the code in question is very tricky,
> it's been majorly revised multiple times, and we're revising it again.
> And nobody except me and Andres is looking at this, and I'm definitely
> not smart enough to get this all right.
I'm also looking, and yes it's tricky.
> Other issues:
It would be good to pgindent the code before producing back-branch
patches. I think some comments will get changed.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
