Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +            if (!HeapTupleHeaderXminFrozen(page_htup))
> +                page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XACT_MASK;
> +            else
> +                page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED |
> HEAP_XMAX_INVALID;
>
> Comment doesn't address this logic.  Also, the "else" case shouldn't
> exist at all, I think.
>

In the *if* check, it just checks frozen status of xmin, so I think
you need to mask xmax related bits in else check.  Can you explain
what makes you think that the else case shouldn't exist?


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com