Re: Phantom command ids again

Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> I was about to resubmit the phantom command ids patch for review, as I
>> noticed a little problem.
>
>> In fmgr.c in record_C_func, we cache the xmin and cmin, and later in
>> lookup_C_func we check that they match to determine if the cached
>> information is still valid. With phantom command ids, the cmin is not
>> valid outside the inserting transaction, which makes it unusable for
>> that purpose.
>
> I think that actually that's just belt-and-suspenders programming;
> it should be sufficient to compare tuple TID and xmin. AFAICS a single
> transaction cannot fill the same TID twice, since VACUUM would never
> dare remove a tuple entered by a still-in-progress transaction. So the
> cmin check doesn't seem necessary.

We don't currently use tid in the up-to-dateness check. Just Oid, xmin
and cmin. Good point, tid would work. I'll change it do that in the patch.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com