Re: HeapTupleHeaderAdvanceLatestRemovedXid doing the wrong thing with multixacts
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: HeapTupleHeaderAdvanceLatestRemovedXid doing the wrong thing with multixacts |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1345132934-sup-1120@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: HeapTupleHeaderAdvanceLatestRemovedXid doing the wrong thing with multixacts (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue ago 16 11:44:48 -0400 2012: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:38:14AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue ago 16 11:24:55 -0400 2012: > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 08:38:18PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > > > >> I just noticed that HeapTupleHeaderAdvanceLatestRemovedXid is comparing Xmax as a TransactionId without verifyingwhether it is a multixact or not. Since they advance separately, this could lead to bogus answers. This probablyneeds to be fixed. I didn't look into past releases to see if there's a live released bug here or not. > > > > > > > > > >> I think the fix is simply to ignore the Xmax if the HEAP_XMAX_IS_MULTI bit is set. > > > > > > > > > >> Additionally I think it should check HEAP_XMAX_INVALID before reading the Xmax at all. > > > > > > > > > > If it's failing to even check XMAX_INVALID, surely it's completely > > > > > broken? Perhaps it assumes its caller has checked all this? > > > > > > > > HeapTupleHeaderAdvanceLatestRemovedXid() is only ever called when > > > > HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() returns HEAPTUPLE_DEAD, which only happens > > > > when HEAP_XMAX_IS_MULTI is not set. > > > > > > > > I'll add an assert to check this and a comment to explain. > > > > > > Was this completed? > > > > As far as I recall, there are changes related to this in my fklocks > > patch. I am hoping to have some review happen on it during the upcoming > > commitfest (which presumably means I need to do a merge to newer > > sources.) > > I was asking about adding the assert check --- does that need to wait > too? I don't think it's worth fussing about. Also I don't need any more merge conflicts than I already have. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: