On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 2:12 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 8:59 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > > > May I suggest to use a different name in the blurt_and_lock_123() > > function, so that it doesn't conflict with the one in > > insert-conflict-specconflict? Thanks > > Renamed to blurt_and_lock(), is that fine? >
I think a non-conflicting name should be fine. > I haved fixed other comments and also prepared patches for the back branches. > Okay, I have verified the fix on all branches and the newly added test was giving error without patch and passes with code change patch. Few minor things: 1. You forgot to make the change in ReorderBufferChangeSize for v13 patch. 2. I have made a few changes in the HEAD patch, (a) There was an unnecessary cleanup of spec insert at one place. I have replaced that with Assert. (b) I have added and edited few comments both in the code and test patch. Please find the patch for HEAD attached. Can you please prepare the patch for back-branches by doing all the changes I have done in the patch for HEAD? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
v6-0001-Fix-decoding-of-speculative-aborts.patch
Description: Binary data
