Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: MultiXact bugs

From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: MultiXact bugs
Date: 2013-11-29 21:14:06
Message-ID: 1385759646.8538.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 15:42:11 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:

>> What back-patching will be needed for a fix?  It sounds like
>> 9.3?
>
> Yep.

In going over this, I found pre-existing bugs when a tuple was both
inserted and deleted by concurrent transactions, but fixing that is
too invasive to consider for Monday's minor release lockdown.  The
attached seems very safe to me, and protects against some new
hazards related to the subtransaction changes (mostly just for an
assert-enabled build, but still worth fixing).  It includes a lot
of work on the comments, to guide the subsequent fixes or other
work in that area.

If nobody objects, I will push it to master and 9.3 tomorrow.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment: multi-xact-predicate-fix-v2.patch
Description: text/x-diff (4.6 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2013-11-29 21:18:08
Subject: Re: Request for Patch Feedback: Lag & Lead Window Functions Can Ignore Nulls
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2013-11-29 21:14:00
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade segfaults when given an invalid PGSERVICE value

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group