Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Yeah, I think this change would have the effect of moving the freeze > > limit by one (or two?) counts. Given the moving nature of values > > returned by ReadNewTransactionId this would probably have no practical > > effect. Still, the code as is seems more natural to me (Tom wrote this > > bit IIRC, not me). > > I am now thinking the code is correct --- it maps values from 0 to > FirstNormalTransactionId into the top of the (unsigned) xid range. > Unless someone objects, I will add a C comment about this behavior so > future readers are not confused.
OK, now I think it is wrong. :-) The effect is to map max xid + 1 to max xid - FirstNormalTransactionId(3) + 1, which makes the xid look like it is going backwards, less than max xid --- not good. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
