Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better
От | Dilip Kumar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFiTN-sVUZNivBd4h=1R21FRDadsoRAmObDRSAh=JRW+4tqyag@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 9:19 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 4:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:20 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 9:11 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > v5-0001, incorporates all the comment fixes suggested by Alvaro. and > > > 0001 is an additional patch which moves > > > MarkCurrentTransactionIdLoggedIfAny(), out of the critical section. > > > > > > > Thanks, both your patches look good to me except that we need to > > remove the sentence related to the revert of ade24dab97 from the > > commit message. I think we should backpatch the first patch to 14 > > where it was introduced and commit the second patch (related to moving > > code out of critical section) only to HEAD but we can even backpatch > > the second one till 9.6 for the sake of consistency. What do you guys > > think? > > > > The other option could be to just commit both these patches in HEAD as > there is no correctness issue here. Right, even I feel we should just commit it to the HEAD as there is no correctness issue. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: