On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>>> Resolve timing issue with logging locks for Hot Standby.
>>> We log AccessExclusiveLocks for replay onto standby nodes,
>>> but because of timing issues on ProcArray it is possible to
>>> log a lock that is still held by a just committed transaction
>>> that is very soon to be removed. To avoid any timing issue we
>>> avoid applying locks made by transactions with InvalidXid.
>>
>>> Simon Riggs, bug report Tom Lane, diagnosis Pavan Deolasee
>>
>> I see this was only applied to HEAD. Wouldn't back-patching be in
>> order? The problem is in 9.1 as well, no?
>
> Yes, it is. I prefer to give a little time before backpatching to
> avoid mistakes (of my own making), especially since we're busy enough
> not to want to divert energy to other releases right now. The patch
> will make it in before next minor release.
If it's going to go in before the next minor release, there's no real
value in holding off, is there?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
