Re: Undo logs

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilip(dot)kumar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Undo logs
Date: 2019-01-10 05:46:16
Message-ID: CAFiTN-tqpHbip3621ABQ_TNW6K7JO1-N8qvpiOaBE+JS2fnAvA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:40 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:11 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 3.
>> + work_txn.urec_next = uur->uur_next;
>> + work_txn.urec_xidepoch = uur->uur_xidepoch;
>> + work_txn.urec_progress = uur->uur_progress;
>> + work_txn.urec_prevurp = uur->uur_prevurp;
>> + work_txn.urec_dbid = uur->uur_dbid;
>>
>> It would be better if we initialize these members in the order in
>> which they appear in the actual structure. All other undo header
>> structures are initialized that way, so this looks out-of-place.
>
>
One more change in ReadUndoByte on same line.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
0003-Provide-interfaces-to-store-and-fetch-undo-records_v16.patch application/octet-stream 68.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2019-01-10 06:07:01 Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-01-10 05:45:00 Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing