public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Ashutosh Bapat <[email protected]>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Maxim Orlov <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]>
Cc: wenhui qiu <[email protected]>
Cc: Postgres hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 08:36:11 +0530
Message-ID: <CAExHW5t6Qjw42V1-XuL22bkZ3YvMPfZn8vgDw3ED7VpcjOcTfQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CACG=ezaWg7_nt-8ey4aKv2w9LcuLthHknwCawmBgEeTnJrJTcw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGjGUA+BfcWyccNN4=tHsW_E-koRxbg8h8ut6hjvPsHMgmek6w@mail.gmail.com>
<CACG=ezYbYO_KHWdeDedbDcY0tOS0JfaqBxG3=bG5+DdsDK4MpQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CACG=ezYpZRPwoRCz_h3Qerd3XJNdpTHCpwGbZphNdy26tA4_qQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACG=ezYUJSvnuxntkURNWo_1vZ+AtmcQfqd_h6WgDzGaudfw+Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAExHW5tUEkiQrvm9hgccjKUNkWBnJ5_HDUrAwiHBTxu+Vuj29Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAExHW5t3kzJiVqmoqCLyGmfkTjD4Rwa27kXH-S_XvHWLkM2fzw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAExHW5ucnoyjd6p7UVVhQTeV7hc8-vX81ti8f7sU0COqfUWzQg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAExHW5s_uNeD_xYjdbSR8khMXwWJQOY9Qg=j4T+5KOfGz5-RsQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 12:49 AM Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 09/12/2025 14:00, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > 1. Currently, at multixid wraparound, MultiXactState->nextMXact goes to
> > 0, which is invalid. All the readers must be prepared for that, and skip
> > over the 0. That's error-prone, we've already missed that a few times.
> > Let's change things so that the code that *writes* MultiXactState-
> > >nextMXact skips over the zero already.
>
> Here's a patch for that. Does anyone see a problem with this?
The patch looks fine to me. It simplifies readers without affecting
writers much. I was expecting more explanation of why it wasn't done
that way to start with and why is it safe to do so (now, if
applicable). There must be a reason why we chose to make readers
handle invalid mxid instead of writers writing one. If it's for
performance reasons then does the new arrangement cause any
regression? If it's for safety reasons, are we fixing one set of
problems but introducing a new set. I was expecting commit message to
answer those questions.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
view thread (79+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits
In-Reply-To: <CAExHW5t6Qjw42V1-XuL22bkZ3YvMPfZn8vgDw3ED7VpcjOcTfQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox