Re: IPC/MultixactCreation on the Standby server

> On 1 Dec 2025, at 17:40, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>
> All of those conflicts were pretty straightforward to handle, but it's
> enough code churn for silly mistakes to slip in, especially when the TAP
> test didn't apply. So if you have a chance, please help to review and
> test each of these backpatched versions too.

I'm looking through patchsets. I'll look in the morning with fresh eyes.
So far I see two CI warning faulures for pg18 and pg17 versions:
https://github.com/x4m/postgres_g/runs/56796102941
https://github.com/x4m/postgres_g/runs/56795182559

Relevant logs:
[14:06:58.425] multixact.c: In function ‘RecordNewMultiXact’:
[14:06:58.425] multixact.c:944:41: error: declaration of ‘slotno’ shadows a previous local [-Werror=shadow=compatible-local]
[14:06:58.425] 944 | int slotno;
[14:06:58.425] | ^~~~~~
[14:06:58.425] multixact.c:913:33: note: shadowed declaration is here
[14:06:58.425] 913 | int slotno;
[14:06:58.425] | ^~~~~~
[14:06:58.425] multixact.c:945:29: error: declaration of ‘lock’ shadows a previous local [-Werror=shadow=compatible-local]
[14:06:58.425] 945 | LWLock *lock;
[14:06:58.425] | ^~~~
[14:06:58.425] multixact.c:919:21: note: shadowed declaration is here
[14:06:58.425] 919 | LWLock *lock;
[14:06:58.425] | ^~~~

If only we had injection points before 17, I could run all the tests there too, just to be sure...

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.