Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Yeah, I think this change would have the effect of moving the freeze
> > limit by one (or two?) counts. Given the moving nature of values
> > returned by ReadNewTransactionId this would probably have no practical
> > effect. Still, the code as is seems more natural to me (Tom wrote this
> > bit IIRC, not me).
> I am now thinking the code is correct --- it maps values from 0 to
> FirstNormalTransactionId into the top of the (unsigned) xid range.
> Unless someone objects, I will add a C comment about this behavior so
> future readers are not confused.
OK, now I think it is wrong. :-)
The effect is to map max xid + 1 to max xid -
FirstNormalTransactionId(3) + 1, which makes the xid look like it is
going backwards, less than max xid --- not good.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-03-31 19:06:53|
|Subject: Re: SSI bug?|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-03-31 18:55:20|
|Subject: Re: Problem with pg_upgrade?|