Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
To: Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>, wenhui qiu
<qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>,
Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-11-26T15:50:25Z
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 26/11/2025 17:23, Maxim Orlov wrote: > On Tue, 25 Nov 2025 at 13:07, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi > <mailto:hlinnaka@iki.fi>> wrote: >> GetOldMultiXactIdSingleMember() currently asserts that the offset is >> never zero, but it should try to do something sensible in that case >> instead of just failing. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but we added the assertion that offsets are > never 0, based on the idea that case #2 will never take place during an > update. If this isn't the case, this assertion could be removed. > The rest of the function appears to work correctly. > > I even think that, as an experiment, we could randomly reset some of the > offsets to zero and nothing would happen, except that some data would > be lost. +1 > The most sensible thing we can do is give the user a warning, right? > Something like, "During the update, we encountered some weird offset > that shouldn't have been there, but there's nothing we can do about it, > just take note." Yep, makes sense. - Heikki