The initialization order in update_cached_xid_range() was wrong, calling
FullTransactionIdFromXidAndCtx() before setting
->next_xid. FullTransactionIdFromXidAndCtx() uses ->next_xid.
In most situations this will not cause visible issues, because the next call
to update_cached_xid_range() will use a less wrong ->next_xid. It's rare that
xids advance fast enough for this to be a problem.
Found while adding more asserts to the 64bit xid infrastructure.
Reviewed-by: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/
20230108002923.cyoser3ttmt63bfn@awork3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 14-, where heapam verification was introduced
index 4fcfd6df72dc9312e495051cbae773e2f79e7cef..33c5b3389596cfd4a0b76762bc2755bc4bc8b2c0 100644 (file)
@@ -1576,6 +1576,9 @@ FullTransactionIdFromXidAndCtx(TransactionId xid, const HeapCheckContext *ctx)
{
uint32 epoch;
+ Assert(TransactionIdIsNormal(ctx->next_xid));
+ Assert(FullTransactionIdIsNormal(ctx->next_fxid));
+
if (!TransactionIdIsNormal(xid))
return FullTransactionIdFromEpochAndXid(0, xid);
epoch = EpochFromFullTransactionId(ctx->next_fxid);
LWLockRelease(XidGenLock);
/* And compute alternate versions of the same */
- ctx->oldest_fxid = FullTransactionIdFromXidAndCtx(ctx->oldest_xid, ctx);
ctx->next_xid = XidFromFullTransactionId(ctx->next_fxid);
+ ctx->oldest_fxid = FullTransactionIdFromXidAndCtx(ctx->oldest_xid, ctx);
}
/*