Excerpts from Jeff Davis's message of mié dic 01 22:48:36 -0300 2010:
> I can't see any place that "cachedFetchXid" is ever invalidated.
> Shouldn't it be invalidated before transaction ID wraparound?
>
> It's difficult to construct a test case to show whether this is a
> problem or not,
Couldn't
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 23:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis writes:
> > I can't see any place that "cachedFetchXid" is ever invalidated.
> > Shouldn't it be invalidated before transaction ID wraparound?
>
> The assumption is that the value won't sit there (in a particular
> session), without
Jeff Davis writes:
> I can't see any place that "cachedFetchXid" is ever invalidated.
> Shouldn't it be invalidated before transaction ID wraparound?
The assumption is that the value won't sit there (in a particular
session), without ever being replaced, while more than 2G transactions
elapse. A
I can't see any place that "cachedFetchXid" is ever invalidated.
Shouldn't it be invalidated before transaction ID wraparound?
It's difficult to construct a test case to show whether this is a
problem or not, but I couldn't find how this is solved in the code. My
understanding is that, before trun
