On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 14:21, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have started review of
0014-Allow-execution-and-discard-of-undo-by-background-wo.patch. Below
are some quick comments to start with:
+++ b/src/backend/access/undo/undoworker.c
+#include "access/xact.h"
+#include "access/undorequest.h"
Order is not alphabetical
+ * Each undo worker then start reading from one of the queue the requests for
start=>starts
queue=>queues
-------------
+ rc = WaitLatch(MyLatch,
+ WL_LATCH_SET | WL_TIMEOUT | WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH,
+ 10L, WAIT_EVENT_BGWORKER_STARTUP);
+
+ /* emergency bailout if postmaster has died */
+ if (rc & WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH)
+ proc_exit(1);
I think now, thanks to commit cfdf4dc4fc9635a, you don't have to
explicitly handle postmaster death; instead you can use
WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH. Please check at all such places where this is
done in this patch.
-------------
+UndoWorkerGetSlotInfo(int slot, UndoRequestInfo *urinfo)
+{
+ /* Block concurrent access. */
+ LWLockAcquire(UndoWorkerLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+
+ MyUndoWorker = &UndoApplyCtx->workers[slot];
Not sure why MyUndoWorker is used here. Can't we use a local variable
? Or do we intentionally attach to the slot as a side-operation ?
-------------
+ * Get the dbid where the wroker should connect to and get the worker
wroker=>worker
-------------
+ BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnectionByOid(urinfo.dbid, 0, 0);
0, 0 => InvalidOid, 0
+ * Set the undo worker request queue from which the undo worker start
+ * looking for a work.
start => should start
a work => work
--------------
+ if (!InsertRequestIntoErrorUndoQueue(urinfo))
I was thinking what happens if for some reason
InsertRequestIntoErrorUndoQueue() itself errors out. In that case, the
entry will not be marked invalid, and so there will be no undo action
carried out because I think the undo worker will exit. What happens
next with this entry ?
