Re: pg_get_multixact_members not documented

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_get_multixact_members not documented
Date: 2025-06-30 13:08:04
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0ta-c0Zy+ZiK=BhP0S-8gDNaq73+VzkP3A7rVqFZ_Y2MA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 7:29 AM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 4:02 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 03:10:56PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > > Barring comments/objections, I'll plan on committing/back-patching this in
> > > the near future.
> >
> > Here is what I have staged for commit. I ended up moving it to the
> > "Transaction ID and Snapshot Information Functions" table, which is what I
> > think you had originally proposed. Creating a new section for this seemed
> > unnecessary, and this table already has one multixact-related function.
>
> WFM.

Correct, I originally proposed the "Transaction ID and Snapshot
Information Functions"
section, but as stated in [0],
pg_get_multixact_members does not fit the description of the section as it
is described as "The main use of these functions is to determine
which transactions
were committed between two snapshots."

IMO, it makes more sense to keep this function in a new section as we
have in v4.

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA5RZ0vtSPzx%2B8HW1gohcWPgURX2VST5j3Nqh2OL6h9dSk0HSg%40mail.gmail.com

--
Sami

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Melanie Plageman 2025-06-30 13:20:33 Re: Periodic FSM vacuum doesn't happen in one-pass strategy vacuum.
Previous Message Nazir Bilal Yavuz 2025-06-30 13:01:04 Improve error reporting in 027_stream_regress test