A bit out of the blue, but I remembered the reason why I could make that change I previously agreed seemed off. Just thought I’d let you know.
At Tue, 05 Nov 2024 13:25:26 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in me> > the commit process to keep the window as small as possible, but if it me> > nevertheless happens, the consequences are pretty bad if you remove a me> > relation file that is in fact needed. me> me> However, on second thought, it does seem odd. I may have confused me> something here. If pendingDeletes is restored and undo cancellation is me> implemented, this change would be unnecessary. The change would indeed be incorrect if updates to mapped relations could occur within subtransactions. However, in reality, trying to perform such an operation raises an error (something like “cannot do this in a subtransaction”) and is rejected. So, there’s actually no path where the removed code would be used. That’s why I judged it was safe to remove that part. However, from that perspective, I think the explanations in the comments and commit messages were somewhat lacking or missed the point. Currently, I’m leaning toward implementing per-relation undo cancellation. Previously, this path was active even during normal aborts, so there were performance concerns, but now it only runs during recovery cleanup, so there are no performance issues with handling cancellation. In the current state, the code has been simplified overall. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
