Re: XMAX_LOCK_ONLY and XMAX_COMMITTED (fk/multixact code)

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Schneider (AWS), Jeremy" <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: XMAX_LOCK_ONLY and XMAX_COMMITTED (fk/multixact code)
Date: 2021-12-01 00:49:43
Message-ID: C72BAC7C-36D9-4282-B6C8-1C04F4F33DE1@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/29/21, 10:10 AM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> Okay, I'll do it that way in the next revision.

v2 attached.

Nathan

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Disallow-HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED-and-HEAP_XMAX_IS_LOC.patch application/octet-stream 9.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andy Fan 2021-12-01 00:50:12 Re: Can I assume relation would not be invalid during from ExecutorRun to ExecutorEnd
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-12-01 00:21:25 Deprecating the term "super-exclusive lock"