| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Diagnostic comment in LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot |
| Date: | 2021-07-12 12:53:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J-NdZAe5wQirZcZ79JgHB1Ry3OVgay00Q_OJk_nmnD+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 5:28 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:39 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> I have noticed that
>> a nearby function LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot() logs similar
>> information after releasing spinlock, so it is better to follow the
>> same here as well.
>
>
> Now that you mention it, the code their looks rather suspicious :)
> We acquire the spinlock at the beginning of the function but do not release it if (restart_lsn <= slot->data.restart_lsn) or if (current_lsn <= slot->data.confirmed_flush).
>
Note that we end else if with (current_lsn <=
slot->data.confirmed_flush) and after that there is a new if. We
release lock in both the if/else conditions, so the code is fine as it
is.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-07-12 12:54:26 | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2021-07-12 12:46:05 | Re: Unused function parameter in get_qual_from_partbound() |