I can't see any place that "cachedFetchXid" is ever invalidated.
Shouldn't it be invalidated before transaction ID wraparound?

It's difficult to construct a test case to show whether this is a
problem or not, but I couldn't find how this is solved in the code. My
understanding is that, before truncating the clog, we need to make sure
that there are no references to any transaction IDs that would be cut
off.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

Responses

• Re: is cachedFetchXid ever invalidated? at 2010-12-02 04:34:12 from Tom Lane
• Re: is cachedFetchXid ever invalidated? at 2010-12-02 13:43:02 from Alvaro Herrera

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: ghatpande	Date: 2010-12-02 02:11:18
	Subject: Re: Proposal: First step towards Intelligent, integrateddatabase
Previous:	From: Craig Ringer	Date: 2010-12-02 01:02:16
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2