Horton

Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <amborodin86@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-01-28T05:02:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> Reading Andres's comments and realising how relatively young
> txid_status() is compared to txid_current(), I'm now wondering if we
> shouldn't just disclaim the whole thing in back branches.

My thoughts were trending in that direction too.  It's starting
to sound like we aren't going to be able to make a fix that
we'd be willing to risk back-patching, even if it were completely
compatible at the user level.

Still, the idea that txid_status() isn't trustworthy is rather
scary.  I wonder whether there is a failure mode here that's
exhibitable without using that.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Remove recovery test 011_crash_recovery.pl

  2. Add a txid_status function.