On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 5:10 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 2, 2025 11:03 PM Robert Haas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 11:44 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > If it is in fact important to acquire the commit timestamp after setting > > delayChkptFlags, you'd hope this would lead to a test failure, but it > > doesn't for > > me. I understand it probably requires an injection point to be certain of > > hitting > > the race condition, but I think that would be worth doing. Otherwise, if > > something gets broken here by accident, it might be a long time before > > anyone > > notices. > > Thanks for pointing it out! > > I agree that adding a test is valuable to mitigate the risk of future code > changes. We added a similar safeguard for the RecordTransactionCommit() > function > by adding Assert(xactStopTimestamp == 0) after marking the DELAY_CHKPT_xxx > flag, > and did not do any precautionary check for RecordTransactionCommitPrepared as > the code to acquire the timestamp and setting flag was close by and had > explicit > comments. > > I'll prepare a test case that uses the injection point and share it in the > original thread. >
The test for this case is added in commit 6456c6e2c4ad1cf9752e09cce37bfcfe2190c5e0. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
