On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 7:35 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Friday, November 4, 2022 4:07 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 6:36 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the analysis and summary !
> > >
> > > I tried to implement the above idea and here is the patch set.
> > >
> >
> > Few comments on v42-0001
> > ===========================
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> >
> > 10.
> > + winfo->shared->stream_lock_id = parallel_apply_get_unique_id();
> > + winfo->shared->transaction_lock_id = parallel_apply_get_unique_id();
> >
> > Why can't we use xid (remote_xid) for one of these and local_xid (one generated
> > by parallel apply) for the other?
...
...
>
> I also considered using xid for these locks, but it seems the objsubid for the
> shared object lock is 16bit while xid is 32 bit. So, I tried to generate a unique 16bit id
> here.
>
Okay, I see your point. Can we think of having a new lock tag for this
with classid, objid, objsubid for the first three fields of locktag
field? We can use a new macro SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION and a
common function to set the tag and acquire the lock. One more point
related to this is that I am suggesting classid by referring to
SET_LOCKTAG_OBJECT as that is used in the current patch but do you
think we need it for our purpose, won't subscription id and xid can
uniquely identify the tag?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.