Horton

Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-09-08T02:00:57Z
Lists: 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...

Commits

  1. Remove some more "snapshot too old" vestiges.

  2. Remove the "snapshot too old" feature.