Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> I can't see any place that "cachedFetchXid" is ever invalidated.
> Shouldn't it be invalidated before transaction ID wraparound?

The assumption is that the value won't sit there (in a particular
session), without ever being replaced, while more than 2G transactions
elapse.  Actually you'd need a full 4G transactions to elapse, and then
to wake up just in time to probe the doppelganger of the very same
transaction number, in order to have any risk of a failure.

If that makes you uncomfortable, I've got bad news: there are quite a
few other assumptions of the same ilk about the lifespan of a single
session.  One comparable failure case is that starting a transaction
that acquires an XID, and then going to sleep for ~2G transactions,
will cause all kinds of trouble.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• is cachedFetchXid ever invalidated? at 2010-12-02 01:48:36 from Jeff Davis

Responses

• Re: is cachedFetchXid ever invalidated? at 2010-12-02 06:15:31 from Jeff Davis

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2010-12-02 04:36:42
	Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
Previous:	From: Andy Colson	Date: 2010-12-02 04:27:37
	Subject: Re: unlogged tables