| From: | "liuhuailing(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <liuhuailing(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: SI messages sent when excuting ROLLBACK PREPARED command |
| Date: | 2021-08-03 09:29:48 |
| Message-ID: | OSZPR01MB62150130DBCBBFA833FFE239BEF09@OSZPR01MB6215.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, tom
> >Hmmm, yeah, I think you're right. It probably doesn't make a big difference in
> the real world --- anyone who's dependent on the performance of 2PC rollbaxks
> is Doing It Wrong.
> > But we'd have already done LocalExecuteInvalidationMessage when getting
> out of the prepared transaction, so no other SI invals should be needed.
> Yes, it does not make any error.
>
> But for the beginner, when understanding the code, it may make confused.
> And for the developer, when developing based on this code, it may make
> unnecessary handling added.
>
> So, I think it is better to optimize the code.
>
> Here is the patch.
There was a problem with the before patch when testing.
So resubmit it.
Regards, Liu Huailing
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Disallow-sending-SI-messages-when-excuting-ROLLBACK.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey V. Lepikhov | 2021-08-03 09:36:34 | Extra code in commit_ts.h |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-08-03 09:11:12 | Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress |