On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 08:34:13PM +0530, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 09:51, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 02:00:48PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > So I think that I misspoke earlier in this thread when I said this is a
> > > bug, and that the right fix here is to remove the Assert() and change
> > > amcheck to match.
> >
> > I'm attaching a patch to do so.
>
> Thanks Julien for the patch.
>
> Patch looks good to me and it is fixing the problem. I think we can
> register in CF.
Thanks for looking at it! I just created an entry for the next commitfest.
> >
> > Changing the name may be overkill, but claryfing the hint bit usage in
> > README.tuplock would definitely be useful, especially since the combination
> > isn't always produced. How about adding something like:
> >
> > HEAP_KEYS_UPDATED
> > This bit lives in t_infomask2. If set, indicates that the XMAX updated
> > this tuple and changed the key values, or it deleted the tuple.
> > + It can also be set in combination of HEAP_XMAX_LOCK_ONLY.
> > It's set regardless of whether the XMAX is a TransactionId or a MultiXactId.
> Make sense. Please can you update this?
Sure, done in attached v2!
