On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 6:12 PM Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:20 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:14 PM Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +#define SizeOfTransactionId (sizeof(TransactionId) + sizeof(char))
> > > > This looks wrong. We should change the name of this Macro or we can
> > > > add the 1 byte directly in HEADER_SCRATCH_SIZE and some comments.
> > >
> > > I think this is in sync with below code (SizeOfXlogOrigin), SO doen't
> > > make much sense to add different terminology no?
> > > #define SizeOfXlogOrigin (sizeof(RepOriginId) + sizeof(char))
> > > +#define SizeOfTransactionId (sizeof(TransactionId) + sizeof(char))
> > >
> > In that case, we can rename this, for example, SizeOfXLogTransactionId.
> >
> > Some review comments from 0002-Issue-individual-*.path,
> >
> > +void
> > +ReorderBufferAddInvalidation(ReorderBuffer *rb, TransactionId xid,
> > + XLogRecPtr lsn, int nmsgs,
> > + SharedInvalidationMessage *msgs)
> > +{
> > + MemoryContext oldcontext;
> > + ReorderBufferChange *change;
> > +
> > + /* XXX Should we even write invalidations without valid XID? */
> > + if (xid == InvalidTransactionId)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + Assert(xid != InvalidTransactionId);
> >
> > It seems we don't call the function if xid is not valid. In fact,
> >
>
> You have a valid point. Also, it is not clear if we are first
> checking (xid == InvalidTransactionId) and returning from the
> function, how can even Assert hit.
I have changed to code, now we only have an assert.
>
> > @@ -281,6 +281,24 @@ DecodeXactOp(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
> > XLogRecordBuffer *buf)
> > }
> > case XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT:
> > break;
> > + case XLOG_XACT_INVALIDATIONS:
> > + {
> > + TransactionId xid;
> > + xl_xact_invalidations *invals;
> > +
> > + xid = XLogRecGetXid(r);
> > + invals = (xl_xact_invalidations *) XLogRecGetData(r);
> > +
> > + if (!TransactionIdIsValid(xid))
> > + break;
> > +
> > + ReorderBufferAddInvalidation(reorder, xid, buf->origptr,
> > + invals->nmsgs, invals->msgs);
> >
> > Why should we insert an WAL record for such cases?
> >
>
> Right, if there is any such case, we should avoid it.
I think we don't have any such case because we are logging at the
command end. So I have created an assert instead of the check.
> One more point about this patch, the commit message needs to be updated:
>
> > The new invalidations are written to WAL immediately, without any
> such caching. Perhaps it would be possible to add similar caching,
> > e.g. at the command level, or something like that?
>
> I think the above part of commit message is not right as the patch
> already does such a caching now at the command level.
Right, I have removed that.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
