| From: | Zhao Song <songzhao(dot)asm(at)icloud(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Remove redundant MultiXactIdIsRunning() check in HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate() |
| Date: | 2026-10-09 06:55:49 |
| Message-ID: | C2096460-850F-4200-BA1F-9202F73C01FF@icloud.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I think your analysis is correct. The "if (TransactionIdDidCommit(xmax))" branch cannot change the result of MultiXactIdIsRunning(), so the later check is redundant.
>
> But I think we should delete the “By here …” comment and retain the “There's no member …” comment because it explains why marking xmax invalid is safe.
Thanks for the review.
Agreed, the "There's no member ..." comment now answers the question the old one asked. v2 attached.
Regards,
Zhao Song
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Remove-redundant-MultiXactIdIsRunning-check-in-He.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-10-09 07:05:31 | Re: Reapply graceful socket shutdown on Windows (revert 29992a6a509) |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-10-09 06:45:18 | Re: Memory leak in statext_ndistinct_build() during ANALYZE |