On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:10 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 8:49 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 6:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 3:32 PM shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > > <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've attached patches for all supported branches including the master.
> > >
> >
> > For back branch patches,
> > * Wouldn't it be better to move purge logic into the function
> > SnapBuildPurge* function for the sake of consistency?
>
> Agreed.
>
> > * Do we really need ReorderBufferInitialXactsSetCatalogChanges()?
> > Can't we instead have a function similar to
> > SnapBuildXidHasCatalogChanges() as we have for the master branch? That
> > will avoid calling it when the snapshot
> > state is SNAPBUILD_START or SNAPBUILD_BUILDING_SNAPSHOT
>
> Seems a good idea. We would need to pass the information about
> (parsed->xinfo & XACT_XINFO_HAS_INVALS) to the function but probably
> we can change ReorderBufferXidHasCatalogChanges() so that it checks
> the RBTXN_HAS_CATALOG_CHANGES flag and then the initial running xacts
> array.
>
Let's try to keep this as much similar to the master branch patch as possible.
> BTW on backbranches, I think that the reason why we add
> initial_running_xacts stuff to ReorderBuffer is that we cannot modify
> SnapBuild that could be serialized. Can we add a (private) array for
> the initial running xacts in snapbuild.c instead of adding new
> variables to ReorderBuffer?
>
While thinking about this, I wonder if the current patch for back
branches can lead to an ABI break as it changes the exposed structure?
If so, it may be another reason to change it to some other way
probably as you are suggesting.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.