Greetings, * Thomas Munro (thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Thomas Munro > > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova > >> <lubennikov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> You claim that SLRUs now support five digit segment name, while in slru.h > >>> at current master I see the following: > >>> > >>> * Note: slru.c currently assumes that segment file names will be four hex > >>> * digits. This sets a lower bound on the segment size (64K transactions > >>> * for 32-bit TransactionIds). > >>> */ > > > > I've now complained about that comment in a separate thread. > > > >> It's not urgent, it's just cleanup work, so I've now moved it to the > >> next commitfest. I will try to figure out a new way to demonstrate > >> that it works correctly without having to ask a review[er] to disable > >> any assertions. Thanks again. > > Rebased again, now with a commit message. That assertion has since > been removed (commit ec99dd5a) so the attached test script can once > again be used to see the contents of pg_serial as the xid goes all the > way around, if you build with TEST_OLDSERXID defined so that > predicate.c forces information about xids out to pg_serial.
I've taken a look through this and it seems pretty reasonable. Would be great to have someone actually try to duplicate the testing that Thomas did (though I have little doubt that it works as described) and get it to Ready-For-Committer state. Anastasia, thanks for the previous review, any chance you could try again with the latest patch (against the current state of git)? Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
