On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Andrew Gierth
<and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>  >> Why is the correct rule not "check for and ignore pre-upgrade mxids
>  >> before even trying to fetch members"?
>  Robert> I entirely believe that's the correct rule, but doesn't
>  Robert> implementing it require a crystal balll?
> Why would it? Pre-9.3 mxids are identified by the combination of flag
> bits in the infomask, see Alvaro's patch.

I see the patch, but I don't see much explanation of why the patch is
correct, which I think is pretty scary in view of the number of
mistakes we've already made in this area.  The comments just say:

+ * A tuple that has HEAP_XMAX_IS_MULTI and HEAP_XMAX_LOCK_ONLY but neither of
+ * XMAX_EXCL_LOCK and XMAX_KEYSHR_LOCK must come from a tuple that was
+ * share-locked in 9.2 or earlier and then pg_upgrade'd.

Why must that be true?

+ * We must not try to resolve such multixacts locally, because the result would
+ * be bogus, regardless of where they stand with respect to the current valid
+ * range.

What about other pre-upgrade mxacts that don't have this exact bit
pattern?  Why can't we try to resolve them and end up in trouble just
as easily?

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to