From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Misleading comment in prologue of ReorderBufferQueueMessage |
Date: | 2020-12-14 09:46:08 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JxQ9ywJiV6YxFCt9p-NJASWErb=18EdT05HNWXS=cE3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:45 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The name of the function suggests that the given message will be queued in ReorderBuffer. The prologue of the function says so too
> 776 /*
> 777 * Queue message into a transaction so it can be processed upon commit.
> 778 */
> It led me to think that a non-transactional message is processed along with the surrounding transaction, esp. when it has an associated xid.
>
> But in reality, the function queues only a transactional message and decoders a non-transactional message immediately without waiting for a commit.
>
> We should modify the prologue to say
> "Queue a transactional message into a transaction so that it can be processed upon commit. A non-transactional message is processed immediately." and also change the name of the function to ReorderBufferProcessMessage(), but the later may break API compatibility.
>
+1 for the comment change but I am not sure if it is a good idea to
change the API name.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-12-14 10:28:18 | Re: HASH_BLOBS hazards (was Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions) |
Previous Message | Benoit Lobréau | 2020-12-14 09:33:06 | Re: pg_shmem_allocations & documentation |