On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 at 10:58, Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That's a great question and I've been wondering about it myself. It goes > all the way to the initial commit where multixacts were introduced, and > I don't see any particular reason for it even back then. Even in the > very first version of multixact.c, IMO it would've been simpler to have > the writer handle the wraparound. > > +1 This code is quite old. I don't see any particular reason for doing it that way. Unfortunately, we were unable to prove the absence of something, namely errors, in this instance. But there were no obvious statements on why it should be in this manner. So, for me, it's much clearer to increment and handle wraparound in one place rather than spread it across multiple calls in the module. -- Best regards, Maxim Orlov.
