On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 04:31, Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 01:59:40PM +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote: > > Indeed, these changes look correct. > > I wonder why b89e151054a0 did this place this way, hope we do not miss > > anything here. > > Perhaps a lack of time back in 2014? It feels like an item where we > would need to research a bit some of the past threads, and see if this > has been discussed, or if there were other potential alternatives > discussed. This is not saying that what you are doing in this > proposal is actually bad, but it's a bit hard to say what an > "algorithm" should look like in this specific code path with XID > manipulations. Perhaps since 2014, we may have other places in the > tree that share similar characteristics as what's done here. > > So it feels like this needs a bit more historical investigation first, > rather than saying that your proposal is the best choice on the table. > -- > Michael
Sure Commit b89e151054a0 comes from [0] Comment of SnapBuildPurgeCommittedTxn tracks to [1] (it was in form "XXX: Neater algorithm?") Between these two messages, it was not disucccesseed... I will also study other related threads like [2], but i don't think they will give more insight here. [0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140303162652.GB16654%40awork2.anarazel.de [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140115002223.GA17204%40awork2.anarazel.de [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20130914204913.GA4071%40awork2.anarazel.de#:~:text=20130914204913.GA4071%40awork2.anarazel.de -- Best regards, Kirill Reshke
