On 2017-12-07 18:32:51 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > Looking at 0002: I agree with the stuff being done here.
>
> The level of details you are providing with a proper error code is an
> improvement over the first version proposed in my opinion.
>
> > I think a
> > couple of these checks could be moved one block outerwards in term of
> > scope; I don't see any reason why the check should not apply in that
> > case. I didn't catch any place missing additional checks.
>
> In FreezeMultiXactId() wouldn't it be better to issue an error as well
> for this assertion?
> Assert(!TransactionIdPrecedes(members[i].xid, cutoff_xid));
I'm not really concerned that much about pure lockers, they don't cause
permanent data corruption...
> > Despite these being "shouldn't happen" conditions, I think we should
> > turn these up all the way to ereports with an errcode and all, and also
> > report the XIDs being complained about. No translation required,
> > though. Other than those changes and minor copy editing a commit
> > (attached), 0002 looks good to me.
If you want to go around doing that in some more places we can do so in
master only...
> + if (!(tuple->t_infomask & HEAP_XMAX_LOCK_ONLY) &&
> + TransactionIdDidCommit(xid))
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED),
> + errmsg("can't freeze committed xmax %u", xid)));
> The usual wording used in errmsg is not the "can't" but "cannot".
>
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED),
> + errmsg_internal("uncommitted Xmin %u from
> before xid cutoff %u needs to be frozen",
> + xid, cutoff_xid)));
> "Xmin" I have never seen, but "xmin" I did.
Changed...
Greetings,
Andres Freund