Re: WAL consistency check facility

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: WAL consistency check facility
Date: 2017-02-07 12:48:05
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYSejRvJHLudPx81OkjMbr0AxUhx9HdoVq86c79bAy=og@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> + if (!HeapTupleHeaderXminFrozen(page_htup))
>> + page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XACT_MASK;
>> + else
>> + page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED |
>> HEAP_XMAX_INVALID;
>>
>> Comment doesn't address this logic. Also, the "else" case shouldn't
>> exist at all, I think.
>>
>
> In the *if* check, it just checks frozen status of xmin, so I think
> you need to mask xmax related bits in else check. Can you explain
> what makes you think that the else case shouldn't exist?

Oh, you're right.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-02-07 13:00:24 Re: 0/NULL/NIL assignments in build_*_rel()
Previous Message Beena Emerson 2017-02-07 12:41:00 Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.