Re: snapshot too old, configured by time

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> After struggling with back-patching a GIN bug fix, I wish to offer up the
> considered opinion that this was an impressively bad idea.  It's inserted
> 450 or so pain points for back-patching, which we will have to deal with
> for the next five years.  Moreover, I do not believe that it will do a
> damn thing for ensuring that future calls of BufferGetPage think about
> what to do; they'll most likely be copied-and-pasted from nearby calls,
> just as people have always done.  With luck, the nearby calls will have
> the right semantics, but this change won't help very much at all if they
> don't.

I hit this problem over the weekend, too, when I tried to rebase a
patch a colleague of mine is working on.  So I tend to agree.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company