Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LUbXXUCQ6f8OEdbeoS+qVY3aE+MtMV=Y-oGgLw74V2ug@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:49 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 7:09 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > > > Does MarkTopTransactionIdLogged() have to be inside XLogInsertRecord's > > critical section? > > I think this function is doing somewhat similar things to what we are > doing in MarkCurrentTransactionIdLoggedIfAny() so put at the same > place. But I don't see any reason for this to be in the critical > section. > Yeah, I also don't see any reason for this to be in the critical section but it might be better to keep both together. So, if we want to keep MarkTopTransactionIdLogged() out of the critical section in this patch then we should move the existing function MarkCurrentTransactionIdLoggedIfAny() in a separate patch so that future readers doesn't get confused as to why one of these is in the critical section and other is not. OTOH, we can move MarkCurrentTransactionIdLoggedIfAny() out of the critical section in this patch itself but that appears like an unrelated change and we may or may not want to back-patch the same. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: