On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 8:47 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> The build-farm was OK for the last 18hrs after this push, except there
> was one error on mamba [1] in test-decoding-check.
>
> This patch did change the test_decoding.c file, so it seems an
> unlikely coincidence, but OTOH the change was very
The build-farm was OK for the last 18hrs after this push, except there
was one error on mamba [1] in test-decoding-check.
This patch did change the test_decoding.c file, so it seems an
unlikely coincidence, but OTOH the change was very small and I don't
see yet how it could have caused a problem h
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 7:20 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> PSA v4 which addresses both of your review comments.
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 10:40 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 7:20 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > PSA v4 which addresses both of your review comments.
>
> Looks like a reasonable change to me.
>
> A nitpick: how about using rbtxn_get_toptxn instead of an explicit
> variable
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 7:20 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> PSA v4 which addresses both of your review comments.
Looks like a reasonable change to me.
A nitpick: how about using rbtxn_get_toptxn instead of an explicit
variable toptxn for single use?
1.
Change
ReorderBufferTXN *toptxn = rbtxn_get
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:55 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
...
> +1 to the idea. Here are some minor comments:
>
> @@ -1667,7 +1658,7 @@ ReorderBufferTruncateTXN(ReorderBuffer *rb,
> ReorderBufferTXN *txn, bool txn_prep
> * about the toplevel xact (we send the XID in all messages), but we
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 8:55 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:43 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:37 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review!
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 6:19 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > 4)
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:33 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 at 12:37, Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the review!
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 6:19 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > ...
> > > Few comments:
> > > 1) Can we move the macros along with the other macros present in this
>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:43 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:37 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the review!
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 6:19 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > 4) We check if txn->toptxn is not null twice here both in if condition
> > > and i
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 5:03 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 at 12:37, Peter Smith wrote:
> >
>
> The same issue exists here too:
> 1)
> - if (toptxn != NULL && !rbtxn_has_catalog_changes(toptxn))
> + if (rbtxn_is_subtxn(txn))
> {
> - toptxn->txn_flag
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:37 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 6:19 PM vignesh C wrote:
> ...
>
> > 4) We check if txn->toptxn is not null twice here both in if condition
> > and in the assignment, we could retain the assignment operation as
> > earlier
On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 at 12:37, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 6:19 PM vignesh C wrote:
> ...
> > Few comments:
> > 1) Can we move the macros along with the other macros present in this
> > file, just above this structure, similar to the macros added for
>
Thanks for the review!
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 6:19 PM vignesh C wrote:
...
> Few comments:
> 1) Can we move the macros along with the other macros present in this
> file, just above this structure, similar to the macros added for
> txn_flags:
> /* Toplevel transaction for this subxact (N
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 04:36, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> During a recent code review, I was confused multiple times by the
> toptxn member of ReorderBufferTXN, which is defined only for
> sub-transactions.
>
> e.g. txn->toptxn member == NULL means the txn is a top level txn.
> e.g. txn->toptxn
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 4:36 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> During a recent code review, I was confused multiple times by the
> toptxn member of ReorderBufferTXN, which is defined only for
> sub-transactions.
>
> e.g. txn->toptxn member == NULL means the txn is a top level txn.
> e.g. txn->toptxn membe
Hi,
During a recent code review, I was confused multiple times by the
toptxn member of ReorderBufferTXN, which is defined only for
sub-transactions.
e.g. txn->toptxn member == NULL means the txn is a top level txn.
e.g. txn->toptxn member != NULL means the txn is not a top level txn
It makes sen
16 matches
Mail list logo
