On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:21 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:16 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:38 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 03:08:36PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > On 2019-Apr-26, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > >> I did that arrangement because the format of PREPARE TRANSACTION > > > >> record, > > > >> i.e., that struct, also needs to be accessed in backend and frontend. > > > >> But, of course, if there is smarter way, I'm happy to adopt that! > > > > > > > > I don't know. I spent some time staring at the code involved, and it > > > > seems it'd be possible to improve just a little bit on cleanliness > > > > grounds, with a lot of effort, but not enough practical value. > > > > > > Describing those records is something we should do. There are other > > > parsing routines in xactdesc.c for commit and abort records, so having > > > that extra routine for prepare at the same place does not sound > > > strange to me. > > > > > > +typedef xl_xact_prepare TwoPhaseFileHeader; > > > I find this mapping implementation a bit lazy, and your > > > newly-introduced xl_xact_prepare does not count for all the contents > > > of the actual WAL record for PREPARE TRANSACTION. Wouldn't it be > > > better to put all the contents of the record in the same structure, > > > and not only the 2PC header information? > > > > This patch doesn't apply anymore, could you send a rebase? > > Yes, attached is the updated version of the patch.
Thanks! So the patch compiles and works as intended. I don't have much to say about it, it all looks good to me, since the concerns about xactdesc.c aren't worth the trouble. I'm not sure that I understand Michael's objection though, as xl_xact_prepare is not a new definition and AFAICS it couldn't contain the records anyway. So I'll let him say if he has further objections or if it's ready for committer!
