From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Inaccurate comments in ReorderBufferCheckMemoryLimit() |
Date: | 2023-07-31 15:15:25 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoA9XB7OR86BqvrCe2dMYX+Zv3-BvVmjF=GY2z6jN-kqjg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi all,
While reading the code, I realized that the following code comments
might not be accurate:
/*
* Pick the largest transaction (or subtransaction) and evict it from
* memory by streaming, if possible. Otherwise, spill to disk.
*/
if (ReorderBufferCanStartStreaming(rb) &&
(txn = ReorderBufferLargestStreamableTopTXN(rb)) != NULL)
{
/* we know there has to be one, because the size is not zero */
Assert(txn && rbtxn_is_toptxn(txn));
Assert(txn->total_size > 0);
Assert(rb->size >= txn->total_size);
ReorderBufferStreamTXN(rb, txn);
}
AFAICS since ReorderBufferLargestStreamableTopTXN() returns only
top-level transactions, the comment above the if statement is not
right. It would not pick a subtransaction.
Also, I'm not sure that the second comment "we know there has to be
one, because the size is not zero" is right since there might not be
top-transactions that are streamable. I think this is why we say
"Otherwise, spill to disk".
I've attached a patch to fix these comments. Feedback is very welcome.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fix_comment.patch | application/octet-stream | 944 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Junwang Zhao | 2023-07-31 15:26:13 | Re: pg_upgrade fails with in-place tablespace |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2023-07-31 14:27:46 | Re: CDC/ETL system on top of logical replication with pgoutput, custom client |