| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Schneider (AWS), Jeremy" <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: XMAX_LOCK_ONLY and XMAX_COMMITTED (fk/multixact code) |
| Date: | 2021-12-01 18:59:25 |
| Message-ID: | 239E70B4-8896-4807-9463-ECD1FF71A560@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/30/21, 4:54 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> v2 attached.
I accidentally left a redundant check in v2, so here is a v3 without
it.
My proposed patch adds a few checks for the unsupported bit patterns
in the visibility code, but it is far from exhaustive. I'm wondering
if it might be better just to add a function or macro that everything
exported from heapam_visibility.c is expected to call. My guess is
the main argument against that would be the possible performance
impact.
Nathan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Disallow-HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED-and-HEAP_XMAX_IS_LOC.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-12-01 19:09:34 | Re: Correct error message for end-of-recovery record TLI |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-01 18:47:58 | Re: Lots of memory allocated when reassigning Large Objects |