Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes

Hi,

On 2017-05-02 08:55:53 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Aah, now I understand we talked about slightly different things, I
> considered the running thing to be first step towards tracking aborted
> txes everywhere.
> I think
> we'll have to revisit tracking of aborted transactions in PG11 then
> though because of the 'snapshot too large' issue when exporting, at
> least I don't see any other way to fix that.

FWIW, that seems unnecessary - we can just check for that using the
clog.  Should be very simple to check for aborted xacts when exporting
the snapshot (like 2 lines + comments).  That should address your
concern, right?


> If you think that adding the SNAPBUILD_BUILD_INITIAL_SNAPSHOT would be
> less invasive/smaller patch I am okay with doing that for PG10.

Attached is a prototype patch for that.

What I decided is that essentially tracking the running xacts is too
unrealiable due to the race, so I decided that just relying on
oldestRunningXid and nextXid - which are solely in the procArray and
thus racefree - is better.

It's not perfect yet, primarily because we'd need to take a bit more
care about being ABI compatible for older releases, and because we'd
probably have to trigger LogStandbySnapshot() a bit more frequently
(presumably while waiting for WAL).  The change means we'll have to wait
a bit longer for slot creation, but it's considerably simpler / more
robust.

Could you have a look?

Regards,

Andres