On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 6:39 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:49 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > BTW regarding the commit f5fc2f5b23 that added total_txns and > > total_bytes, we add the reorder buffer size (i.g., rb->size) to > > rb->totalBytes but I think we should use the transaction size (i.g., > > txn->size) instead: > > > > You are right about the problem but I think your proposed fix also > won't work because txn->size always has current transaction size which > will be top-transaction in the case when a transaction has multiple > subtransactions. It won't include the subtxn->size.
Right. I missed the point that ReorderBufferProcessTXN() processes also subtransactions. > I think we can fix it by keeping track of total_size in toptxn as we > are doing for the streaming case in ReorderBufferChangeMemoryUpdate. > We can probably do it for non-streaming cases as well. Agreed. I've updated the patch. What do you think? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
use_total_size_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
