Horton

Re: WAL consistency check facility

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@enterprisedb.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2017-02-07T12:48:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +            if (!HeapTupleHeaderXminFrozen(page_htup))
>> +                page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XACT_MASK;
>> +            else
>> +                page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED |
>> HEAP_XMAX_INVALID;
>>
>> Comment doesn't address this logic.  Also, the "else" case shouldn't
>> exist at all, I think.
>>
>
> In the *if* check, it just checks frozen status of xmin, so I think
> you need to mask xmax related bits in else check.  Can you explain
> what makes you think that the else case shouldn't exist?

Oh, you're right.

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

Commits

  1. Minor fixes for WAL consistency checking.