On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:28:54AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-May-30, Antonin Houska wrote: > > > In the header comment, SnapBuildInitialSnapshot() claims to set > > snapshot->satisfies to the HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC test function, and indeed > > it > > converts the "xid" array to match its semantics (i.e. the xid items > > eventually > > represent running transactions as opposed to the committed ones). However > > the > > test function remains HeapTupleSatisfiesHistoricMVCC as set by > > SnapBuildBuildSnapshot(). > > Interesting. While this sounds like an oversight that should have > horrible consequences, it's seems not to because the current callers > don't seem to care about the ->satisfies function. Are you able to come > up with some scenario in which it causes an actual problem?
Uh, are we going to fix this anyway? Seems we should. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
