Re: Bug in StartupSUBTRANS

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in StartupSUBTRANS
Date: 2016-02-10 05:06:54
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSfomh1-O1URRph-ObyGAMv=6i5-B4veKBmK-j1-D_XdA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Your patch looks right to me, so I will commit, barring objections... with
>> backpatch. Likely to 9.0, AFAICS.
>
> 9.0 is out of support and should not be patched anymore.
>
> I agree that the patch is basically correct, though I'd personally
> write it without bothering with the extra variable:
>
> + /* must account for wraparound */
> + if (startPage > TransactionIdToPage(0xFFFFFFFF))
> + startPage = 0;
>
> Also, the comment at line 45 is now wrong and needs an addition.

Instead of using a hardcoded value, wouldn't it be better to use
something based on MaxTransactionId?
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-02-10 05:39:32 Re: process type escape for log_line_prefix
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2016-02-10 05:02:44 Re: Relation extension scalability