Re: Follow-up review items for update_deleted

On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 7:42 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 3, 2026 9:57 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > The patch 001 looks good to me. I had just one comment which I noticed
> > Kuroda-San has already covered.
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> >
> > ReplicationSlotMarkDirty();
> > ReplicationSlotSave();
> > These calls are only needed if xmin is adjusted.
>
> Changed.
>
> > --
> >
> > Now, the better names for 'init_conflict_slot_xmin' could be:
> > adjust_conflict_slot_xmin, refresh_conflict_slot_xmin.
> >
>
> I chose Kuroda-San's version in this version.
>
> > --
> >
> > Also would it be better if we change elog to:
> >
> > if (!TransactionIdIsValid(old_xmin))
> > elog(DEBUG1, "initialized conflict detection slot's xmin to %u", xmin_horizon);
> > else elog(DEBUG1, "adjusted conflict detection slot's xmin from %u to %u",
> > old_xmin, xmin_horizon);
>
> I added a single elog(DEBUG without an if condition to keep it simple.
> Users can already see the history from the log anyway.
>
> Apart from above comments, I also addressed comments from Kuroda-San[1] and
> Nisha[2].
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OS9PR01MB1214975F154718013E1B82D4AF5B62%40OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
> [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABdArM7nwKpoVQ5v42xz6D-qAVrNGdb%2ByMUGmSR8Tapv%3DmFzDw%40mail.gmail.com
>

I have no further comments on the patch.

thanks
Shveta