Hi hackers,
> Yeah, pg_upgrade will briefly start and stop the old server to make
> sure all the WAL is replayed, and won't transfer any of the files
> over. AFAIK, major-version WAL changes are fine; it was the previous
> claim that we could do it in a minor version that I was unsure about.
OK, here is the patchset v53 where I mostly modified the commit
messages. It is explicitly said that 0001 modifies the WAL records and
why we decided to do it in this patch. Additionally any mention of
64-bit XIDs is removed since it is not guaranteed that the rest of the
patches are going to be accepted. 64-bit SLRU page numbering is a
valuable change per se.
Changing the status of the CF entry to RfC apparently was a bit
premature. It looks like the patchset can use a few more rounds of
review.
In 0002:
```
-#define TransactionIdToCTsPage(xid) \
- ((xid) / (TransactionId) COMMIT_TS_XACTS_PER_PAGE)
+static inline int64
+TransactionIdToCTsPageInternal(TransactionId xid, bool lock)
+{
+ FullTransactionId fxid,
+ nextXid;
+ uint32 epoch;
+
+ if (lock)
+ LWLockAcquire(XidGenLock, LW_SHARED);
+
+ /* make a local copy */
+ nextXid = ShmemVariableCache->nextXid;
+
+ if (lock)
+ LWLockRelease(XidGenLock);
+
+ epoch = EpochFromFullTransactionId(nextXid);
+ if (xid > XidFromFullTransactionId(nextXid))
+ --epoch;
+
+ fxid = FullTransactionIdFromEpochAndXid(epoch, xid);
+
+ return fxid.value / (uint64) COMMIT_TS_XACTS_PER_PAGE;
+}
```
I'm pretty confident that shared memory can't be accessed like this,
without taking a lock. Although it may work on x64 generally we can
get garbage, unless nextXid is accessed atomically and has a
corresponding atomic type. On top of that I'm pretty sure
TransactionIds can't be compared with the regular comparison
operators. All in all, so far I don't understand why this piece of
code should be so complicated.
The same applies to:
```
-#define TransactionIdToPage(xid) ((xid) / (TransactionId)
SUBTRANS_XACTS_PER_PAGE)
+static inline int64
+TransactionIdToPageInternal(TransactionId xid, bool lock)
```
... in subtrans.c
Maxim, perhaps you could share with us what your reasoning was here?
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
