On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Yeah, I think this change would have the effect of moving the freeze
>> > limit by one (or two?) counts. Given the moving nature of values
>> > returned by ReadNewTransactionId this would probably have no practical
>> > effect. Still, the code as is seems more natural to me (Tom wrote this
>> > bit IIRC, not me).
>> I am now thinking the code is correct --- it maps values from 0 to
>> FirstNormalTransactionId into the top of the (unsigned) xid range.
>> Unless someone objects, I will add a C comment about this behavior so
>> future readers are not confused.
> OK, now I think it is wrong. :-)
> The effect is to map max xid + 1 to max xid -
> FirstNormalTransactionId(3) + 1, which makes the xid look like it is
> going backwards, less than max xid --- not good.
The XID space is *circular*.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2011-03-31 19:38:11|
|Subject: Windows build issues|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-03-31 19:06:53|
|Subject: Re: SSI bug?|