Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YuOOY-0004lj-HK for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 18 May 2015 17:00:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YuOOX-0004mI-F9 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 18 May 2015 17:00:01 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YuOOS-0004dC-4C for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 18 May 2015 16:59:56 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YuOOO-0002IR-Nr for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 18 May 2015 16:59:54 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t4IGxlUl022167; Mon, 18 May 2015 12:59:47 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Marko Tiikkaja , Andres Freund , hackers Subject: Re: ERROR: cannot GetMultiXactIdMembers() during recovery In-reply-to: <20150518164803.GP2523@alvh.no-ip.org> References: <54EB3283.2080305@joh.to> <20150223141300.GB30784@awork2.anarazel.de> <5555F1E2.5080104@joh.to> <20150518164803.GP2523@alvh.no-ip.org> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Mon, 18 May 2015 13:48:03 -0300" Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:59:47 -0400 Message-ID: <22166.1431968387@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Alvaro Herrera writes: > Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >> Any chance to get this fixed in time for 9.1.16? > I hope you had pinged some days earlier. Here's a patch, but I will > wait until this week's releases have been tagged before pushing. Is this a recent regression, or has it been busted all along in those branches? If the former, maybe we should take the risk of fixing it today (the patch certainly looks safe enough). But if it's been this way a long time and nobody noticed till now, I'd agree with waiting. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers