On October 15, 2015 1:02:04 PM GMT+02:00, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> 
>On 15 October 2015 at 17:43, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>> I guess since it'll be InvalidRepOriginId otherwise, that makes
>> That's not the point. XACT_XINFO_HAS_ORIGIN is about
>> origin_lsn/timestamp, it doesn't have anything to do with the record
>> origin (which is included in many more types of record than just
>> commits).
>Ok, I think I see. That's also why it wasn't incorporated into
>I'll check which records can contain it and assign it in the
>appropriate decoding calls. I'll follow up in a while with an updated

As far as I can see all the other places have it assigned.

>>> > Your test prints the origins from the transaction instead the
>changes -
>>> > why?
>>> I don't understand this part.
>> Your test prints origin in commits - but changes can have individual
>> origins.
>I was completely unaware of that, so thankyou. I'll change the tests
>to exercise that. Any preferences on the output format?
>table public.origin_tbl: INSERT: id[integer]:6 data[text]:'from second
>origin' -- origin:'some_origin' origin_lsn:'0/1234'
>it's cluttered, but really I'm not sure there's a pretty way to pack
>that in, and it's only test output.

I'm inclined not to commit this part - seems to add too much complications for 
the amount of coverage. But please use it for testing.


Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to