From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
        Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
        Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>,
        Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("HaveRegisteredOrActiveSnapshot()", File: "toast_internals.c", Line: 670, PID: 19403)
In-reply-to: <CA+Tgmoaf4V3JKFE_GsgemiXm7hpQryhanaLHcH=x=-aGWU_nLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+TgmoYKWXhYRRSHwMTo-N48i64jOvq1yYmwrz7vHKFGnOyy8Q@mail.gmail.com> <1527714.1649957811@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+Tgmob93_YftfhrSF+OpNWXWtv2bq774yBH3JxPiJf=-DxoiA@mail.gmail.com> <1535399.1649963150@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+Tgmoap=U6yeftFb4-EbMQ1xAXE8ZZ+_GRAkTwx4L+jr+zNoA@mail.gmail.com> <1542208.1649967960@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1971135.1650134559@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20220417133112.phzg25rs66w5zipv@alap3.anarazel.de> <2131038.1650210718@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20220418143901.mdxs53vq3g4u2skp@alap3.anarazel.de> <CA+Tgmoaf4V3JKFE_GsgemiXm7hpQryhanaLHcH=x=-aGWU_nLg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 18 Apr 2022 10:44:22 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2272215.1650293635.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 10:53:55 -0400
Message-ID: <2272216.1650293635@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2272216.1650293635%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I still think it would be better to have GetOldestSnapshot() be
> smarter and refuse to return the catalog snapshot. For one thing, that
> way we'd be testing for the problem case in non-assert builds also.

I was wondering about that too.  On the other hand, given that
we know this area is squishy, transforming fails-in-assert-builds
to fails-everywhere is not necessarily desirable.

			regards, tom lane