On Wed, 5 May 2021 at 23:15, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Which was fine as far as it went, but I failed to account for the xid
> assignment not necessarily being durable when the client calls
> txid_status().
Ahem, I meant "when the client calls txid_current()"
--
Craig Ringer
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 05:52, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Craig, it kind of looks to me like you assumed it'd be guaranteed that
> the xid at this point would show in-progress?
>
At the time I wrote that code, I don't think I understood that xid
assignment wasn't necessarily durable until either
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 04:28, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 4:52 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > The 011_crash_recovery.pl test test starts a transaction, creates a
> > table, fetches the transaction's xid. Then shuts down the server in
> > immediate mode. It then asserts that after
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 4:52 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> The 011_crash_recovery.pl test test starts a transaction, creates a
> table, fetches the transaction's xid. Then shuts down the server in
> immediate mode. It then asserts that after crash recovery the previously
> assigned xid is shown as
