On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 11:45 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 12:46 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 4:36 PM Dilip Kumar wrote: > > > > > > > > I am thinking can't we make it more deterministic such that when we > > > get the status first time if we find some transactions that are in > > > commit phase then we should just wait for those transaction to get > > > committed? One idea is to get the list of xids in commit phase and > > > next time when we get the list we can just compare and in next status > > > if we don't get any xids in commit phase which were in commit phase > > > during previous status then we are done. But not sure is this worth > > > the complexity? Mabe not but shall we add some comment explaining the > > > case and also explaining why this corner case is not harmful? > > > > I also think it's not worth the complexity for this corner case which is > > rare. > > Yeah, complexity is one part, but I feel improving such less often > cases could add performance burden for more often cases where we need > to either maintain and invalidate the cache on the publisher or send > the list of all such xids to the subscriber over the network.
Yeah, that's a valid point. > > So, I have added some comments in wait_for_publisher_status() to > > mention the same. > > > > I agree that at this stage it is good to note down in comments, and if > we face such cases often, then we can improve it in the future. +1 -- Regards, Dilip Kumar Google
