Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 45433d99-f080-bb95-8aba-fc6b0c523bd0@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/15/2017 09:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Tomas Vondra > <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> What I think we should not do is interpret the bitmasks (omitting some of >> the information) assuming all the bits were set correctly. > > I'm still confused. HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED|HEAP_XMIN_ABORTED == > HEAP_XMIN_FROZEN. Nobody is proposing to omit anything; to the > contrary, what's being proposed is not to display the same thing > twice (and in a misleading fashion, to boot). > I understand your point. Assume you're looking at this bit of code: if (HeapTupleHeaderXminCommitted(enumval_tup->t_data)) return; which is essentially if (enumval_tup->t_data & HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED) return; If the function only gives you HEAP_XMIN_FROZEN, how likely is it you miss this actually evaluates as true? You might say that people investigating issues in this area of code should be aware of how HEAP_XMIN_FROZEN is defined, and perhaps you're right ... regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: