Re: MARKED_FOR_UPDATE && XMAX_COMMITTED == XMAX_INVALID ?

Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
> If a transaction marks a tuple for update and later commits without
> actually having updated the tuple, do we still need the information
> that the tuple has once been reserved for an update or can we simply
> set the HEAP_XMAX_INVALID hint bit of the tuple?

AFAICS this is a reasonable thing to do.

Eventually we might also be able to remove the bits of logic that check
for MARKED_FOR_UPDATE in a committed tuple, but that would not be
backwards-compatible so I'd vote against doing it immediately.

regards, tom lane