On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:52 AM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote:
> With your proposed approach, what I'm seeing is that the worker calls
> GetTransactionSnapshot() at some point, which then builds a new
> snapshot, and results in increasing TransactionXmin (probably because
> another concurrent transaction has since completed). This snapshot is
> thus later than the snapshot used in the execution state of the query
> being executed. This causes the Assert in
> SubTransGetTopmostTransaction() to fire because the xid doesn't follow
> or equal the TransactionXmin value.
Ah ha! Thank you. So I think what I was missing here is that even
though the transaction snapshot is not a well-defined concept when
!IsolationUsesXactSnapshot(), we still need TransactionXmin to be set
to a value that's earlier than any XID we might inquire about. So the
proposal to install the leader's active snapshot as the worker's
transaction snapshot is really just a way of making that happen. Now
that I understand better, that seems OK to me when
!IsolationUsesXactSnapshot(), but otherwise I think we need to
serialize and restore the actual transaction snapshot. Do you agree?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
