Hi,
On 2021-01-29 14:04:47 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:18 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-01-25 12:00:08 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > /*
> > > > >* For backward compatibility reasons this has to be stored in the
> > > > > wrongly
> > >
On 2021-Jan-25, Andres Freund wrote:
> See attached patch...
Looks good to me.
I was wondering if there would be a point in using a FullTransactionId
instead of an unadorned one. I don't know what's the true risk of
an Xid wraparound occurring here, but it seems easier to reason about.
But then
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:18 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-01-25 12:00:08 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > /*
> > > >* For backward compatibility reasons this has to be stored in the
> > > > wrongly
> > > >* named field. Will be fixed in next major version.
> > > >
Hi,
On 2021-01-25 12:00:08 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > /*
> > >* For backward compatibility reasons this has to be stored in the
> > > wrongly
> > >* named field. Will be fixed in next major version.
> > >*/
> > > return builder->was_running.was_xmax;
> >
> > We could fix t
Hi,
Thomas, CCing you because of the condvar bit below.
On 2021-01-25 19:28:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In SnapBuildFinalSnapshot(), we have this comment:
> > /*
> > * c) transition from START to BUILDING_SNAPSHOT.
> > *
> > * In START state, and a xl_running_xacts re
