Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Date
Msg-id 3260692.1659568781@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade  ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
List pgsql-hackers
"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> I did rule out wanting to do the "xid + $X" check after reviewing some 
> of the output. I think that both $X could end up varying, and it really 
> feels like a bandaid.

It is that.  I wouldn't feel comfortable with $X less than 100 or so,
which is probably sloppy enough to draw Robert's ire.  Still, realizing
that what we want right now is a band-aid for 15beta3, I don't think
it's an unreasonable short-term option.

> Andres suggested upthread using "txid_current()" -- for the comparison, 
> that's one thing I looked at. Would any of the XID info from 
> "pg_control_checkpoint()" also serve for this test?

I like the idea of txid_current(), but we have no comparable
function for mxid do we?  While you could get both numbers from
pg_control_checkpoint(), I doubt that's sufficiently up-to-date.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: enable/disable broken for statement triggers on partitioned tables