Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1pY9ks-0001SM-8K
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2023 18:03:42 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1pY9kq-0005TC-Dy
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2023 18:03:40 +0000
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1pY9kp-0005T2-WC
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2023 18:03:40 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1pY9kj-00084s-29
	for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2023 18:03:38 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 323I3V9I2506574;
	Fri, 3 Mar 2023 13:03:31 -0500
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Harden new test case against force_parallel_mode = regress.
In-reply-to: <CA+TgmoaiimSJsLE6kfL_9EwYHfpK474aMWP3aUeJUDnM556QEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1pXri2-001aid-6W@gemulon.postgresql.org> <CA+TgmoY-dsB-6GyF8q+V0T5+0Gbw0cT6TE7_8SsnESeUHZpnZQ@mail.gmail.com> <2478846.1677861476@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmobbA4gC103oSaFw+M7-ivmOMXRLAEx3Lwk+2asB92=4sg@mail.gmail.com> <2504511.1677865602@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmoaiimSJsLE6kfL_9EwYHfpK474aMWP3aUeJUDnM556QEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 03 Mar 2023 12:56:23 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <2506572.1677866611.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 13:03:31 -0500
Message-ID: <2506573.1677866611@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2506573.1677866611%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 12:46 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Couldn't we install the leader's snapshot into both transactions?

> Yeah, maybe that would Just Work. Not sure.

Well, IIUC the worker is currently getting a brand new snapshot
for its startup transaction, which is exactly what you said upthread
it should never do.  Seems like that could have more failure modes
than just this one.

			regards, tom lane