On 2024-Nov-19, Will Mortensen wrote:
> Sounds good to me. :-)
Pushed, thanks for reporting this.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Entristecido, Wutra (canción de Las Barreras)
echa a Freyr a rodar
y a nosotros al mar"
On 2024-Nov-19, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hmm, yeah, it seems you're correct about this being an oversight -- we
> don't necessarily use a multixact if all we want to do is to store a FOR
> SHARE lock.
The "Infomask Bits" section explains correctly. I propose the following
amendment,
diff --git a
Sounds good to me. :-)
On 2024-Nov-18, Will Mortensen wrote:
> README.tuplock says:
>
> > There is one exception
> > here: since infomask space is limited, we do not provide a separate bit
> > for SELECT FOR SHARE, so we have to use the extended info in a MultiXact in
> > that case. (The other cases, SELECT FOR UPDATE
