From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Faulty HEAP_XMAX_LOCK_ONLY & HEAP_KEYS_UPDATED hintbit combination |
Date: | 2021-02-23 20:47:33 |
Message-ID: | 20210223204733.GA11420@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Feb-05, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Thanks, that's way better, copied in v3.
Thank you, pushed. The code changes are only relevant in master, but I
did back-patch the README.tuplock to all live branches.
> I'm still a bit worried about that description though, as that flag
> isn't consistently set for the FOR UPDATE case. Well, to be more
> precise it's maybe consistently set when the hint bits are computed,
> but in some cases the flag is later cleared, so you won't reliably
> find it in the tuple.
Is that right? I think compute_new_xmax_infomask would set the bit to
infomask2_old_tuple (its last output argument) if it's needed, and so
the bit would find its way to infomask2 eventually. Do you have a case
where it doesn't achieve that?
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
"E pur si muove" (Galileo Galilei)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2021-02-23 20:56:28 | [BUG] segfault during delete |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2021-02-23 19:58:32 | Re: Asynchronous and "direct" IO support for PostgreSQL. |