Re: [PATCH] Provide more information to filter_prepare

From: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Markus Wanner <markus(dot)wanner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Provide more information to filter_prepare
Date: 2021-03-29 12:00:41
Message-ID: CALDaNm1MOReVA9dR-C3w+r_4BciZa2=rHvGp+e_2Td3EFDMaeQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:46 PM Markus Wanner
<markus(dot)wanner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 29.03.21 13:04, vignesh C wrote:
> > The above content looks sufficient to me.
>
> Good, thanks. Based on that, I'm adding v7 of the patch.
>

Thanks for the updated patch.

@@ -440,7 +441,8 @@ pg_decode_rollback_prepared_txn(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
* substring, then we filter it out.
*/
static bool
-pg_decode_filter_prepare(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, const char *gid)
+pg_decode_filter_prepare(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, TransactionId xid,
+ const char *gid)
{
if (strstr(gid, "_nodecode") != NULL)
return true;

Currently there is one test to filter prepared txn with gid having
"_nodecode". I'm not sure if we can have any tests based on xid, I'm
sure you might have thought about it, Have you intentionally not
written any tests as it will be difficult to predict the xid. I just
wanted to confirm my understanding.

Regards,
Vignesh

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Wanner 2021-03-29 12:10:28 Re: [PATCH] Provide more information to filter_prepare
Previous Message Amit Langote 2021-03-29 11:49:28 Re: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better