From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better |
Date: | 2021-10-04 04:26:29 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LD3SdGiXPRMMY5epQFVPqNQVimyVZxmNhPLy4SKA-wBA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 5:05 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 8:10 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-Oct-02, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > I have written two patches, Approach1 is as you described using a
> > > static boolean and Approach2 as a local variable to XLogAssembleRecord
> > > as described by Amit, attached both of them for your reference.
> > > IMHO, either of these approaches looks cleaner.
> >
> > Thanks! I haven't read these patches carefully, but I think the
> > variable is about assigning the *subxid*, not the topxid. Amit can
> > confirm ...
>
> IIRC, this variable is for logging the top xid in the first WAL by
> each subtransaction. So that during logical decoding, while creating
> the ReorderBufferTxn for the subtransaction we can associate it to the
> top transaction without seeing the commit WAL.
>
This is correct.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-10-04 05:04:22 | Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-03 17:21:32 | pgsql: Fix checking of query type in plpgsql's RETURN QUERY command. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-10-04 04:59:19 | Re: (LOCK TABLE options) “ONLY” and “NOWAIT” are not yet implemented |
Previous Message | Yura Sokolov | 2021-10-04 04:18:56 | Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks |