Re: WAL consistency check facility

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: WAL consistency check facility
Date: 2017-02-07 11:32:47
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KGz5t+VSM6RnFhWtx8MMf+2zhx6ZymY+nCo4JMGjGxWQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> + if (!HeapTupleHeaderXminFrozen(page_htup))
> + page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XACT_MASK;
> + else
> + page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED |
> HEAP_XMAX_INVALID;
>
> Comment doesn't address this logic. Also, the "else" case shouldn't
> exist at all, I think.
>

In the *if* check, it just checks frozen status of xmin, so I think
you need to mask xmax related bits in else check. Can you explain
what makes you think that the else case shouldn't exist?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mithun Cy 2017-02-07 11:44:19 Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Previous Message Beena Emerson 2017-02-07 11:16:46 Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.