On 9/20/23 11:53, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 7:57 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>
> I was reading through 0001, I noticed this comment in
> ReorderBufferSequenceIsTransactional() function
>
> + * To decide if a sequence change should be handled as transactional or
> applied
> + * immediately, we track (sequence) relfilenodes created by each transaction.
> + * We don't know if the current sub-transaction was already assigned to the
> + * top-level transaction, so we need to check all transactions.
>
> It says "We don't know if the current sub-transaction was already
> assigned to the top-level transaction, so we need to check all
> transactions". But IIRC as part of the steaming of in-progress
> transactions we have ensured that whenever we are logging the first
> change by any subtransaction we include the top transaction ID in it.
>
Yeah, that's a stale comment - the actual code only searched through the
top-level ones (and thus relying on the immediate assignment). As I
wrote in the earlier response, I suspect this code originates from
before I added the GetCurrentTransactionId() calls.
That being said, I do wonder why with the immediate assignments we still
need the bit in ReorderBufferAssignChild that says:
/*
* We already saw this transaction, but initially added it to the
* list of top-level txns. Now that we know it's not top-level,
* remove it from there.
*/
dlist_delete(&subtxn->node);
I don't think that affects this patch, but it's a bit confusing.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
