Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF356633728 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:40:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04255-06-3 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:39:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639B86336C3 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:38:25 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id nBLFc79d015332; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:38:07 -0500 (EST) To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Andres Freund , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Simon Riggs Subject: Re: Small Bug in GetConflictingVirtualXIDs In-reply-to: <20091221152534.GB3913@alvh.no-ip.org> References: <200912210402.37850.andres@anarazel.de> <20091221152534.GB3913@alvh.no-ip.org> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:25:34 -0300" Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:38:07 -0500 Message-ID: <15331.1261409887@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.546 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200912/1864 X-Sequence-Number: 152567 Alvaro Herrera writes: > Andres Freund wrote: >> The logic behind this seems fine except in the case of dropping a database. >> There you very well might have a open connection without an open snapshot. > Perhaps the simplest fix is to ensure that drop database gets a snapshot? I confess to not having followed the thread closely, but why is DROP DATABASE special in this regard? Wouldn't we soon find ourselves needing every utility command to take a snapshot? regards, tom lane