Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

From: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date: 2021-03-17 02:37:44
Message-ID: CALDaNm3FKeNKroWQXuQ=3LbvvrwFiBGW121Lrf9-Z6UR0UwJSw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:22 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:22 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 6:14 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >>
> >
> > 2) table_states_not_ready global variable is used immediately after
> > call to FetchTableStates, we can make FetchTableStates return the
> > value or get it as an argument to the function and the global
> > variables can be removed.
> > +static List *table_states_not_ready = NIL;
> >
>
> But we do update the states in the list table_states_not_ready in
> function process_syncing_tables_for_apply. So, the current arrangement
> looks good to me.

But I felt we can do this without using global variables.
table_states_not_ready is used immediately after calling
FetchTableStates in AnyTablesyncsNotREADY and
process_syncing_tables_for_apply functions. It is not used anywhere
else. My point was we do not need to store this in global variables as
it is not needed elsewhere. We could change the return type or return
in through the function argument in this case.
Thoughts?

Regards,
Vignesh

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2021-03-17 02:58:47 Re: A new function to wait for the backend exit after termination
Previous Message torikoshia 2021-03-17 02:35:45 Re: Should we improve "PID XXXX is not a PostgreSQL server process" warning for pg_terminate_backend(<<postmaster_pid>>)?