Re: Use correct type for catalog_xmin

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Imran Zaheer <imran(dot)zhir(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use correct type for catalog_xmin
Date: 2026-06-08 06:07:30
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JENdPiJmW2xS00i954oUgfX-cYZ-2WhPU+1nkRCTG+wg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:05 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 8:52 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 3:33 PM Imran Zaheer <imran(dot)zhir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > In commit 85c17f6, the variable old_catalog_xmin is using the type
> > > XLogRecPtr, even though data.catalog_xmin is a TransactionId.
> > >
> > > Attached patch fixes this by using TransactionId instead
> >
> > Yes. Looks like a copy-pasto in 85c17f612af7b9c47a9828805686f0dd2433cdf1.
> >
> > Patch LGTM.
>
> LGTM.
>
> This does not seem to cause any functional issue even without the fix,
> since the variable is only used for an equality check. However, the type
> is clearly incorrect, so I think it's better to backpatch it through v17.
>

+1.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lukas Fittl 2026-06-08 06:08:13 Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-06-08 05:45:40 Re: bugfix - fix broken output in expanded aligned format, when data are too short