On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 at 21:29, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 03:20:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 01:29:31PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> Or we could just enforce that you have an active snapshot whenever you
> >> modify a catalog with a TOAST table. That's simpler, but it requires extra
> >> work in some paths (and probably comments to point out that we're only
> >> pushing an active snapshot to satisfy an assertion).
> >
> > I may be wrong, but I suspect that enforcing the check without being
> > column-based is the right way to go and that this is going to catch
> > more errors in the long-term than being a maintenance burden. So I
> > would keep the snapshot check even if it's a bit aggressive, still
> > it's useful. And we are not talking about that may code paths that
> > need to be switched to require a snapshot, as well. Most of the ones
> > you have mentioned on this thread are really particular in the ways
> > they do transaction handling. I suspect that it may also catch
> > out-of-core issues with extensions doing direct catalog manipulations.
>
> That is useful feedback, thanks.
Michael's feedback from [1] is still pending, so I'm updating the
status to "Waiting on Author." Please provide an updated patch and
change the status back to "Needs Review".
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z0a6IwjW36af71J7%40paquier.xyz
Regards,
Vignesh
