Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>
Cc: Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-09-12T13:14:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix partial read handling in pg_upgrade's multixact conversion
- ac94ce8194e5 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Increase timeout in multixid_conversion upgrade test
- bd43940b02b2 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Improve sanity checks on multixid members length
- ecb553ae8211 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Clarify comment on multixid offset wraparound check
- 170361d7b869 14.21 landed
- b0b52b7123ae 15.16 landed
- 7d42e2367c6b 16.12 landed
- cd1a887fe9bf 17.8 landed
- 3fbad030a24d 18.2 landed
- 366dcdaf5779 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Never store 0 as the nextMXact
- 87a350e1f284 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add runtime checks for bogus multixact offsets
- d4b7bde4183b 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Widen MultiXactOffset to 64 bits
- bd8d9c9bdfa0 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Move pg_multixact SLRU page format definitions to a separate header
- bb3b1c4f6462 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Convert confusing macros in multixact.c to static inline functions
- 0099b9408e8c 17.0 landed
-
Index SLRUs by 64-bit integers rather than by 32-bit integers
- 4ed8f0913bfd 17.0 cited
-
Cope with possible failure of the oldest MultiXact to exist.
- b6a3444fa635 9.4.4 cited
On 2024-Sep-12, Pavel Borisov wrote: > Hi, Maxim! > > Previously we accessed offsets in shared MultiXactState without locks as > 32-bit read is always atomic. But I'm not sure it's so when offset become > 64-bit. > E.g. GetNewMultiXactId(): > > nextOffset = MultiXactState->nextOffset; > is outside lock. Good though. But fortunately I think it's not a problem. The one you say is with MultiXactGetLock held in shared mode -- and that works OK, as the assignment (in line 1263 at the bottom of the same routine) is done with exclusive lock held. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/