"Bossart, Nathan" <bossa...@amazon.com> writes:
> On 5/30/21, 10:22 AM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> We can do a lot better, by exploiting what we know about the usage
>> patterns of invalidation requests.
> I spent some time looking through this patch, and it seems reasonable
> to me.
Thanks for reviewing!
>> There is one notable new assumption I had to make for this. At end
>> of a subtransaction, we have to merge its inval events into the
>> "PriorCmd" list of the parent subtransaction. (It has to be the
>> PriorCmd list, not the CurrentCmd list, because these events have
>> already been processed locally; we don't want to do that again.)
>> This means the parent's CurrentCmd list has to be empty at that
>> instant, else we'd be trying to merge sublists that aren't adjacent
>> in the array. As far as I can tell, this is always true: the patch's
>> check for it doesn't trigger in a check-world run. And there's an
>> argument that it must be true for semantic consistency (see comments
>> in patch). So if that check ever fails, it probably means there is a
>> missing CommandCounterIncrement somewhere. Still, this could use more
>> review and testing.
> I didn't discover any problems with this assumption in my testing,
> either. Perhaps it'd be good to commit something like this sooner in
> the v15 development cycle to maximize the amount of coverage it gets.
Yeah, that's a good point. I'll go push this.
regards, tom lane
