Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-04-22 18:01:40 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Thanks for the analysis and patches. I've been playing with this on my > > own a bit, and one thing that I just noticed is that at least for > > heap_update I cannot reproduce a problem when the xmax is originally a > > multixact, so AFAICT the number of places that need patched aren't as > > many. > > I am quite uncomfortable with that assumption. I don't immediately see a > problem for some of the cases, but leaving them in a weaker state than > 9.2 makes me uncomfortable.
That's true too. I'm thinking about the comparison of full infomask as you propose instead of just the bits that we actually care about. I think the only thing that could cause a spurious failure (causing an extra execution of the HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate call and the stuff below) is somebody setting HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED concurrently; but that seems infrequent enough that it should pretty harmless. However, should we worry about possible future infomask bit changes that could negatively affect this behavior? -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
