| From: | Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix bug in multixact Oldest*MXactId initialization and access |
| Date: | 2026-03-03 12:02:06 |
| Message-ID: | 120550bf-ca50-4a07-91b1-a88f1434ee8b@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
02.03.2026 22:09, Sami Imseih пишет:
>>> It says “Each is indexed by ProcNumber”, but it’s no longer accurate for OldestMemberMXactId prepared-xact entries, which now use index (procno - FIRST_PREPARED_XACT_PROC_NUMBER).
>>
>> Fixed those and some other comment work, and pushed. Thanks!
>>
>
> Thanks! what are your thoughts about adding a test like the one
> here [1] ? This allows us to test correct handling of prepared
> transaction dummy procs. The asserts added will not cover
> this case.
>
> What do you think?
>
> [1] [https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA5RZ0twq5bNMq0r0QNoopQnAEv%2BJ3qJNCrLs7HVqTEntBhJ%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com]
I support: test for bug fixed is a good thing.
--
regards
Yura Sokolov aka funny-falcon
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaroslav Novikov | 2026-03-03 12:06:58 | Re: Streaming replication and WAL archive interactions |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-03-03 11:55:36 | Re: Cleanup shadows variable warnings, round 1 |