On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-06-30 08:59:16 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > On 2016-06-29 19:04:31 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> There is nothing in this record which recorded the information about >> >> visibility clear flag. >> > >> > I think we can actually defer the clearing to the lock release? >> >> How about the case if after we release the lock on page, the heap page >> gets flushed, but not vm and then server crashes? > > In the released branches there's no need to clear all visible at that > point. Note how heap_lock_tuple doesn't clear it at all. So we should be > fine there, and that's the part where reusing an existing record is > important (for compatibility). >
For back branches, I agree that heap_lock_tuple is sufficient, but in that case we should not clear the vm or page bit at all as done in proposed patch. > But your question made me realize that we despearately *do* need to > clear the frozen bit in heap_lock_tuple in 9.6... > Right. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers