Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGKP5v8XkrvxEnayi-Op-_mSfURb6e-m_MstpKtj_JZjXA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 1:53 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:58 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hope we get "snapshot too old" back one day.
>
> Thanks for working on this. Though I wonder why you didn't do
> something closer to a straight revert of the feature. Why is nbtree
> still passing around snapshots needlessly?
>
> Also, why are there still many comments referencing the feature?
> There's the one above should_attempt_truncation(), for example.
> Another appears above init_toast_snapshot(). Are these just
> oversights, or was it deliberate? You said something about retaining
> vestiges.

Oh.  Not intentional.  Looking now...



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Impact of checkpointer during pg_upgrade