| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Fix GetOldestXmin comment | 
| Date: | 2017-05-30 17:43:22 | 
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoDM9FQ7n_b9HTSjFMhJKhsWdS2sp61T1nov7CnqEZZfSw@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While reading source code, I realized that comment of GetOldestXmin mentions;
>>
>>   * if rel = NULL and there are no transactions running in the current
>>   * database, GetOldestXmin() returns latestCompletedXid.
>>
>> However, in that case if I understand correctly GetOldestXmin()
>> actually returns latestCompletedXid + 1 as follows;
>>
>
> Isn't there another gotcha in above part of the comment, shouldn't it
> say rel != NULL?  AFAICS, when rel is NULL, it considers all databases
> not only current database.
>
Hmm it could return latestCompletedXid in that case. I think I
understood now, Thank you!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-05-30 17:55:04 | Re: Replication status in logical replication | 
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-05-30 17:25:06 | Re: Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed |