| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits |
| Date: | 2025-12-03 19:12:40 |
| Message-ID: | ed232cb7-1fdc-415a-92e6-8df908ce6128@iki.fi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/12/2025 14:35, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:23 PM Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 at 16:17, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> An UPDATE waits for FOR SHARE query to finish, and vice versa. In my
>>> experiments I didn't see an UPDATE creating a multi-xact. Why do we
>>> have UPDATEs in the load created by the test? Am I missing something?
>>
>> As far as I remember, this was done on purpose to create different
>> multixact members statuses randomly.
>
> In that case, better to include that in the comments.
I think that was indeed the purpose, but the test should use FOR KEY
SHARE rather than FOR SHARE. Otherwise the UPDATEs don't generate multixids.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-12-03 19:23:39 | Re: increased duration of stats_ext tests with -DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-12-03 19:11:45 | Re: Consistently use palloc_object() and palloc_array() |