|From:||Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>|
|To:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Incorrect visibility test function assigned to snapshot|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:28:54AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2018-May-30, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > > In the header comment, SnapBuildInitialSnapshot() claims to set
> > > snapshot->satisfies to the HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC test function, and indeed it
> > > converts the "xid" array to match its semantics (i.e. the xid items eventually
> > > represent running transactions as opposed to the committed ones). However the
> > > test function remains HeapTupleSatisfiesHistoricMVCC as set by
> > > SnapBuildBuildSnapshot().
> > Interesting. While this sounds like an oversight that should have
> > horrible consequences, it's seems not to because the current callers
> > don't seem to care about the ->satisfies function. Are you able to come
> > up with some scenario in which it causes an actual problem?
> Uh, are we going to fix this anyway? Seems we should.
Sorry, I forgot. Patch is below and I'm going to add an entry to the next CF.
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
|Next Message||Dean Rasheed||2019-02-08 11:00:47||Re: BUG #15623: Inconsistent use of default for updatable view|
|Previous Message||Matsumura, Ryo||2019-02-08 10:37:09||RE: [PROPOSAL]a new data type 'bytea' for ECPG|