From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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: | 2021-10-20 11:47:02 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vCznDJuYfCjyQtiVAjHhuHxwASS8eJSe4BPW6jrsbvkQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:17 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:25 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I have one comment here, basically, you have changed the function name
> > to "IsTopTransactionIdLogged", but it still behaves like
> > IsTopTransactionIdLogPending. Now with the new name, it should return
> > (CurrentTransactionState->topXidLogged) instead of
> > (!CurrentTransactionState->topXidLogged).
> >
>
> Valid point but I think the change suggested by you won't be
> sufficient. We also need to change all the other checks in that
> function to return true which will make it a bit awkward. So instead,
> we can change the function name to IsTopTransactionIdLogPending().
> Does that make sense?
Yeah, that makes sense.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-20 13:33:44 | Re: pgsql: Refactor the sslfiles Makefile target for ease of use |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-10-20 10:53:26 | Re: pgsql: Refactor the sslfiles Makefile target for ease of use |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-10-20 11:47:47 | Re: [PATCH] Fix memory corruption in pg_shdepend.c |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-10-20 11:41:22 | Re: Question about building an exportable snapshop |