From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Removing redundant check for transaction in progress in check_safe_enum_use |
Date: | 2021-07-06 12:29:51 |
Message-ID: | CAEze2WhcJXgXHUOyuFFGpA3-d6Y8JFRJbdQOMEtXLDFBFG5-Fg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 4 Jul 2021, 03:40 Zhihong Yu, <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I was looking at :
> Relax transactional restrictions on ALTER TYPE ... ADD VALUE (redux).
>
> In check_safe_enum_use():
>
> + if (!TransactionIdIsInProgress(xmin) &&
> + TransactionIdDidCommit(xmin))
> + return;
>
> Since the condition would be true only when TransactionIdDidCommit() returns true, I think the call to TransactionIdIsInProgress is not needed.
> If transaction for xmin is committed, the transaction cannot be in progress at the same time.
I'm not sure that removing the !TransactionIdIsInProgress-check is
correct. The comment in heapam_visibility.c:13 explains that we need
to check TransactionIdIsInProgress before TransactionIdDidCommit in
non-MVCC snapshots, and I'm fairly certain that check_safe_enum_use()
is not guaranteed to run only in MVCC snapshots (at least its
documentation does not warn against non-MVCC snapshots).
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | zwj | 2021-07-06 12:42:23 | 回复: Why is XLOG_FPI_FOR_HINT always need backups? |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2021-07-06 12:14:47 | Re: [PATCH] expand the units that pg_size_pretty supports on output |