Re: Remembering bug #6123

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remembering bug #6123
Date: 2012-01-12 22:51:04
Message-ID: 4F0F0F780200002500044755@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:

>> Am I getting closer?
>
> Hmm, I would think you'd get assertion failures from calling
> HeapTupleHeaderGetCmax when xmax isn't the current transaction.
> (But I'm not sure that the regression tests really exercise such
> cases ... did you try the isolation tests with this?)

I didn't go farther than a `make check`, but I'm doing a more
thorough set of tests now.

> I was thinking we should probably define the cmax as being
> returned only in SelfUpdated cases.

I thought about that, but didn't see how it could be other than
self-updated. If you do, I guess I missed something.

> You failed to update assorted relevant comments, too. But I can
> take it from here.

I can take another pass to polish it if you'd like. I didn't expect
this to be the last version I posted; I was afraid I might still
have some restructuring to do.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2012-01-12 22:53:23 Re: Remembering bug #6123
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-01-12 22:44:16 Re: Remembering bug #6123