From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhils(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtrans links incorrectly |
Date: | 2017-04-27 02:10:34 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqT-ki3Z=gJHcFzp=8U+26GAYgF_uw3ALycjJTDpqdebeg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I've added code following Michael and Tom's comments to the previous
>> patch. New patch attached.
>
> Couple of minor suggestions:
>
> * Rather than deleting the comment for SubTransSetParent entirely,
> maybe make it say "It's possible that the parent was already recorded.
> However, we should never be asked to change an already-set entry to
> something else."
>
> * In SubTransGetTopmostTransaction, maybe it'd be better to spell
> "TransactionIdFollowsOrEquals" as "!TransactionIdPrecedes" to make
> it look more like the test just above. Matter of taste though.
>
> * Less a matter of taste is that I think that should be just elog(ERROR);
> there's no good reason to make it FATAL.
>
> * Also, I think there should be a comment there, along the lines of
> "check for reversed linkage to ensure this isn't an infinite loop".
No more comments from here, thanks for working on the patch.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-04-27 02:30:28 | Re: PG 10 release notes |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-27 02:07:03 | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |