| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <a(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Maybe don't process multi xmax in FreezeMultiXactId() if it is already marked as invalid? |
| Date: | 2024-06-18 15:47:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznwPKvmTv_Mo=yOfngcjX-1aus7VhjYWw9LTA5pF4o=yg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 10:29 AM Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Maybe, I'm too bold, but looks like a kinda bug to me. At least, I don't understand why we do not check the HEAP_XMAX_INVALID flag.
> My guess is nobody noticed, that MultiXactIdIsValid call does not check the mentioned flag in the "first" condition, but it's all my speculation.
A related code path was changed in commit 02d647bbf0. That change made
the similar xmax handling that covers XIDs (not MXIDs) *stop* doing
what you're now proposing to do in the Multi path.
Why do you think this is a bug?
> Does anyone know if there are reasons to deliberately ignore the HEAP_XMAX INVALID flag? Or this is just an unfortunate oversight.
HEAP_XMAX_INVALID is just a hint.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2024-06-18 16:08:45 | Re: Meson far from ready on Windows |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2024-06-18 15:25:08 | Re: Truncation of mapped catalogs (whether local or shared) leads to server crash |