| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix bug in multixact Oldest*MXactId initialization and access |
| Date: | 2026-03-03 15:11:05 |
| Message-ID: | e7c8a4ef-458a-4e72-be09-51c65ab446d5@iki.fi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/03/2026 14:02, Yura Sokolov wrote:
> 02.03.2026 22:09, Sami Imseih пишет:
>>>> It says “Each is indexed by ProcNumber”, but it’s no longer accurate for OldestMemberMXactId prepared-xact entries, which now use index (procno - FIRST_PREPARED_XACT_PROC_NUMBER).
>>>
>>> Fixed those and some other comment work, and pushed. Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> Thanks! what are your thoughts about adding a test like the one
>> here [1] ? This allows us to test correct handling of prepared
>> transaction dummy procs. The asserts added will not cover
>> this case.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> [1] [https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA5RZ0twq5bNMq0r0QNoopQnAEv%2BJ3qJNCrLs7HVqTEntBhJ%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com]
> I support: test for bug fixed is a good thing.
Ok, here's another version of Sami's repro. I realized that it doesn't
even need concurrent sessions, so I moved it to the main regression test
suite, into the 'prepared_xacts' test. Looks good?
- Heikki
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Add-test-for-row-locking-and-multixids-with-prepared.patch | text/x-patch | 5.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-03-03 15:22:03 | Re: Fix bug in multixact Oldest*MXactId initialization and access |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2026-03-03 15:05:29 | Re: [BUG?] estimate_hash_bucket_stats uses wrong ndistinct for avgfreq |