On 26/11/2025 17:23, Maxim Orlov wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2025 at 13:07, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi
> <mailto:hlinnaka@iki.fi>> wrote:
>> GetOldMultiXactIdSingleMember() currently asserts that the offset is
>> never zero, but it should try to do something sensible in that case
>> instead of just failing.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but we added the assertion that offsets are
> never 0, based on the idea that case #2 will never take place during an
> update. If this isn't the case, this assertion could be removed.
> The rest of the function appears to work correctly.
>
> I even think that, as an experiment, we could randomly reset some of the
> offsets to zero and nothing would happen, except that some data would
> be lost.
+1
> The most sensible thing we can do is give the user a warning, right?
> Something like, "During the update, we encountered some weird offset
> that shouldn't have been there, but there's nothing we can do about it,
> just take note."
Yep, makes sense.
- Heikki
