From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Schneider (AWS), Jeremy" <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: XMAX_LOCK_ONLY and XMAX_COMMITTED (fk/multixact code) |
Date: | 2021-11-24 00:35:56 |
Message-ID: | 873D6C1B-B299-449E-9A1A-09558C22C659@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Nov 23, 2021, at 4:26 PM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I've finally gotten started on this, and I've attached a work-in-
> progress patch to gather some early feedback. I'm specifically
> wondering if there are other places it'd be good to check for these
> unsupported combinations and whether we should use the
> HEAP_XMAX_IS_LOCKED_ONLY macro or just look for the
> HEAP_XMAX_LOCK_ONLY bit.
I have to wonder if, when corruption is reported for conditions like this:
+ if ((ctx->tuphdr->t_infomask & HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED) &&
+ HEAP_XMAX_IS_LOCKED_ONLY(ctx->tuphdr->t_infomask))
if the first thing we're going to want to know is which branch of the HEAP_XMAX_IS_LOCKED_ONLY macro evaluated true? Should we split this check to do each branch of the macro separately, such as:
if (ctx->tuphdr->t_infomask & HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED)
{
if (ctx->tuphdr->t_infomask & HEAP_XMAX_LOCK_ONLY)
... report something ...
else if ((ctx->tuphdr->t_infomask & (HEAP_XMAX_IS_MULTI | HEAP_LOCK_MASK)) == HEAP_XMAX_EXCL_LOCK)
... report a different thing ...
}
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-11-24 00:36:30 | Re: Windows build warnings |
Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-11-24 00:32:00 | Re: XMAX_LOCK_ONLY and XMAX_COMMITTED (fk/multixact code) |