Re: XMAX_LOCK_ONLY and XMAX_COMMITTED (fk/multixact code) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: XMAX_LOCK_ONLY and XMAX_COMMITTED (fk/multixact code)
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wz=8RtReZ=GsDqtRj6YRAy5RLsAi3wA+FdgCcdUXeuej+A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: XMAX_LOCK_ONLY and XMAX_COMMITTED (fk/multixact code)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: XMAX_LOCK_ONLY and XMAX_COMMITTED (fk/multixact code)  (Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> We could do this in stable branches, if there were any reports that
> this inconsistency is happening in real world databases.

I hope that the new heapam amcheck stuff eventually leads to our
having total (or near total) certainty about what correct on-disk
states are possible, regardless of the exact pg_upgrade + minor
version paths. We should take a strict line on this stuff where
possible. If that turns out to be wrong in some detail, then it's
relatively easy to fix as a bug in amcheck itself.

There is a high cost to allowing ambiguity about what heapam states
are truly legal/possible. It makes future development projects harder.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tatsuro Yamada
Date:
Subject: Re: list of extended statistics on psql
Next
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Clang Address Sanitizer (Postgres14) Detected Memory Leaks