Re: Question about InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot()

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>

Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, "suyu.cmj" <mengjuan.cmj@alibaba-inc.com>, "bharath.rupireddyforpostgres" <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2025-10-30T05:55:33Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 04:18:26AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> The tests are also stabilized on 17 thanks to 17a165d60f73 and on 16 thanks
> to 86392e8827d8, so I think that we should be fine on those branches too.

Applied down to v16, including the comment when the LWLock is
released for consistency across all the branches.  The buildfarm will
now tell a bit more.
--
Michael

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Fix regression with slot invalidation checks
- e3714dc059db 16.11 landed
- f3fb6bc9feec 17.7 landed
- bf3dba508ee1 18.1 landed
- d43209468906 19 (unreleased) landed
Fix race leading to incorrect conflict cause in InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot()
- 818fefd8fd44 17.0 cited