On 2015-02-27 16:26:08 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2015-02-24 20:51:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> On 02/20/2015 05:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> >There's one bit that I'm not so sure about though: To avoid duplication > >> >I've added Parse(Commit/Abort)Record(), but unfortunately that has to be > >> >available both in front and backend code - so it's currently living in > >> >xactdesc.c. I think we can live with that, but it's certainly not > >> >pretty. > >> > >> Yeah, that's ugly. Why does frontend code need that? The old format > >> isn't exactly trivial for frontend code to decode either. > > > > pg_xlogdump outputs subxacts and such; I don't forsee other > > usages. Sure, we could copy the code around, but I think that's worse > > than having it in xactdesc.c. Needs a comment explaining why it's there > > if I haven't added one already. > > FWIW, I think they would live better in frontend code for client applications.
What do you mean with that? You mean you'd rather see a copy in pg_xlogdump somewhere? How would you trigger that being used instead of the normal description routine? > +/* free opcode 0x70 */ > + > +#define XLOG_XACT_OPMASK 0x70 > There is a contradiction here, 0x70 is not free. The above is a mask, not an opcode - so I don't think it's a contraction. I'll expand on the commentary on the next version. Thanks for having a look! Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
