Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On 2026-May-05, Antonin Houska wrote:
>
> > However, I failed to notice that COMMIT record of
> > a transaction listed in the xl_running_xacts WAL record is not guaranteed to
> > follow the xl_running_xacts record in WAL. In other words, even if
> > xl_running_xacts is created before a COMMIT record of the contained
> > transaction, it may end up at higher LSN in WAL. So the cleanup I relied on
> > might not take place.
>
> That's pretty bad news.
>
> > I've got no good idea how to fix that.
One idea occurred to me yet, effectively it's just a cleanup. Part of it was
already proposed [1].
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAHg%2BQDcQak4jx_6X2_Ws98rzG%3DxBARLjqm_%3D56wTRUtNsY4DZQ%40mail.gmail.com
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
