From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilip(dot)kumar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Undo logs |
Date: | 2019-01-10 05:46:16 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tqpHbip3621ABQ_TNW6K7JO1-N8qvpiOaBE+JS2fnAvA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:40 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:11 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 3.
>> + work_txn.urec_next = uur->uur_next;
>> + work_txn.urec_xidepoch = uur->uur_xidepoch;
>> + work_txn.urec_progress = uur->uur_progress;
>> + work_txn.urec_prevurp = uur->uur_prevurp;
>> + work_txn.urec_dbid = uur->uur_dbid;
>>
>> It would be better if we initialize these members in the order in
>> which they appear in the actual structure. All other undo header
>> structures are initialized that way, so this looks out-of-place.
>
>
One more change in ReadUndoByte on same line.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0003-Provide-interfaces-to-store-and-fetch-undo-records_v16.patch | application/octet-stream | 68.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2019-01-10 06:07:01 | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-01-10 05:45:00 | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |