From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add contrib/pg_logicalsnapinspect |
Date: | 2024-10-14 06:17:38 |
Message-ID: | Zwy3goasKiSBQeEe@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 04:48:26PM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 11:15 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 6:15 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 05:38:43PM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 6:10 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The patches mostly look good to me. Here are some minor comments:
> > >
> > > Thanks for looking at it!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > + sprintf(path, "%s/%s",
> > > > + PG_LOGICAL_SNAPSHOTS_DIR,
> > > > + text_to_cstring(filename_t));
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Validate and restore the snapshot to 'ondisk' */
> > > > + ValidateAndRestoreSnapshotFile(&ondisk, path,
> > > > CurrentMemoryContext, false);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Build a tuple descriptor for our result type */
> > > > + if (get_call_result_type(fcinfo, NULL, &tupdesc) != TYPEFUNC_COMPOSITE)
> > > > + elog(ERROR, "return type must be a row type");
> > > > +
> > > > I think it would be better to check the result type before reading the
> > > > snapshot file.
> > >
> > > Agree, done in v14.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > + values[i++] = Int64GetDatum((int64) ondisk.checksum);
> > > >
> > > > Why is only checksum casted to int64? With that, it can show a
> > > > checksum value as a non-netagive integer but is it really necessary?
> > > > For instance, page_header() function in pageinspect shows a page
> > > > checksum as smallint.
> > >
> > > Yeah, pd_checksum in PageHeaderData is uint16 while checksum in SnapBuildOnDisk
> > > is pg_crc32c. The reason why it is casted to int64 is explained in [1], does that
> > > make sense to you?
> >
> > In the email, you said:
> >
> > > As the checksum could be > 2^31 - 1, then v9 (just shared up-thread) changes it
> > > to an int8 in the pg_logicalinspect--1.0.sql file. So, to avoid CI failure on
> > > the 32bit build, then v9 is using Int64GetDatum() instead of UInt32GetDatum().
> >
> > I'm fine with using Int64GetDatum() for checksum.
> >
> > >
> > > > Same goes for below:
> > > > values[i++] = Int32GetDatum(ondisk.magic);
> > > > values[i++] = Int32GetDatum(ondisk.magic);
> > >
> > > The 2 others field (magic and version) are unlikely to be > 2^31 - 1, so v9 is
> > > making use of UInt32GetDatum() and keep int4 in the sql file.
> >
> > While I agree that these two fields are unlikely to be > 2^31 - 1, I'm
> > concerned a bit about an inconsistency that the patch uses
> > Int64GetDatum also for both ondisk.builder.committed.xcnt and
> > ondisk.builder.catchange.xcnt.
Thanks for the feedback. That makes sense and I agree with the proposal done
in v15.
> >
> > I have a minor comment:
> >
> > + <sect2 id="pglogicalinspect-funcs">
> > + <title>General Functions</title>
> >
> > If we use "General Functions" here it sounds like there are other
> > functions for specific purposes in pg_logicalinspect module. How about
> > using "Functions" instead?
>
> To elaborate further, pageinspect has a "General Functions" section,
> which makes sense to me as it has other AM-type specific functions. On
> the other hand, pg_logicalinspect has SQL functions only for one
> logical replication component. So I think it makes sense to use
> "Function" instead. pg_walinspect also has the sole section "General
> Function"
Yeah, I used it as a "template".
> but I personally think that "Function" is more appropriate
> like other modules does.
I do agree.
> BTW I think that adding snapshot_internal.h could be a separate patch.
> That makes the main pg_logicalinspect patch cleaner.
Agree.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-10-14 06:23:06 | Re: Add contrib/pg_logicalsnapinspect |
Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-10-14 06:12:32 | Re: Missing deconstruct_array_builtin usage |