Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists()

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Ranier Vilela
Тема Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists()
Дата
Msg-id CAEudQAqYRH93L2qsEBb7jxpuBMYzUK+A1kG=R2E_m3=9vBuq-g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists()  ("Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>)
Ответы Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists()  ("Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>)
Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists()  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 08:12, Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrouvot@amazon.com> escreveu:

Hi,

On 9/29/21 12:59 PM, Ranier Vilela wrote:

Em qua., 29 de set. de 2021 às 06:55, Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrouvot@amazon.com> escreveu:
I'm also inclined to #1.
I have a stupid question, why duplicate PushActiveSnapshot?
Wouldn't one function be better?

PushActiveSnapshot(Snapshot snap, int as_level);

Sample calls:
PushActiveSnapshot(GetTransactionSnapshot(), GetCurrentTransactionNestLevel());
PushActiveSnapshot(queryDesc->snapshot, GetCurrentTransactionNestLevel());
PushActiveSnapshot(GetTransactionSnapshot(), portal->createSubid);

I would say because that could "break" existing extensions for example.

Adding a new function prevents "updating" existing extensions making use of PushActiveSnapshot().

Valid argument of course.
But the extensions should also fit the core code.
Duplicating functions is very bad for maintenance and bloats the code unnecessarily, IMHO.

regards,
Ranier Vilela

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Masahiko Sawada
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress
Следующее
От: "Drouvot, Bertrand"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists()