On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 9:46 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2021-Oct-20, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 7:09 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > > wrote: > > > > In IsTopTransactionIdLogPending(), I suggest to reorder the tests so > > > that the faster ones are first -- or at least, the last one should be at > > > the top, so in some cases we can return without additional function > > > calls. I don't think it'd be extremely noticeable, but as Tom likes to > > > say, a cycle shaved is a cycle earned. > > > > I don't think we can really move the last at top. Basically, we only > > want to log the top transaction id if all the above check passes and > > the top xid is not yet logged. For example, if the WAL level is not > > logical then we don't want to log the top xid even if it is not yet > > logged, similarly, if the current transaction is not a subtransaction > > then also we don't want to log the top transaction. > > Well, I don't suggest to move it verbatim, but ISTM the code can be > restructured so that we do that test first, and if we see that flag set > to true, we don't have to consider any of the other tests. That flag > can only be set true if we saw all the other checks pass in the same > subtransaction, right?
Yeah you are right, I will change it. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
