On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 03:15:42PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't think this is a good commit message. It's totally unclear what > it means, and when I opened up the diff to try to see what was > changed, it looked nothing like what I expected.
(Not my intention to ignore you here, my head has been underwater for some time.) > I think a better message would have been something like > "startedInRecovery flag must be propagated to subtransactions". You are right, sorry about that. Something like "Propagate properly startedInRecovery in subtransactions started during recovery" would have been better than what I used. > And I > think there should have been some analysis in the commit message or > the comments within the commit itself of whether it was intended that > this be propagated to subtransactions or not. It's hard to understand > why the flag would have been placed in the TransactionState if it > applied globally to the transaction and all subtransactions, but maybe > that's what happened. Alvaro has mentioned something like that on the original thread where we could use comments when a transaction state is pushed to a subtransaction to track better the fields used and/or not used. Documenting more all that at the top of TransactionStateData is something we should do. > Instead of discussing that issue, your commit message focuses in the > user-visible consequences, but in a sort of baffling way. The > statement that "Dead tuples are ignored and are not marked as dead > during recovery," for example, is clearly false on its face. If > recovery didn't mark dead tuples as dead, it would be completely > broken. Rather than "dead" tuples, I implied "killed" tuples in this sentence. Killed tuples are ignored during recovery. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
