On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:56 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > While editing back branch patches, I realized that the following
> > > (parsed->xinfo & XACT_XINFO_HAS_INVALS) and (parsed->nmsgs > 0) are
> > > equivalent:
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * If the COMMIT record has invalidation messages, it could have
> > > catalog
> > > + * changes. It is possible that we didn't mark this transaction as
> > > + * containing catalog changes when the decoding starts from a commit
> > > + * record without decoding the transaction's other changes. So, we
> > > ensure
> > > + * to mark such transactions as containing catalog change.
> > > + *
> > > + * This must be done before SnapBuildCommitTxn() so that we can
> > > include
> > > + * these transactions in the historic snapshot.
> > > + */
> > > + if (parsed->xinfo & XACT_XINFO_HAS_INVALS)
> > > + SnapBuildXidSetCatalogChanges(ctx->snapshot_builder, xid,
> > > + parsed->nsubxacts, parsed->subxacts,
> > > + buf->origptr);
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Process invalidation messages, even if we're not interested in the
> > > * transaction's contents, since the various caches need to always be
> > > * consistent.
> > > */
> > > if (parsed->nmsgs > 0)
> > > {
> > > if (!ctx->fast_forward)
> > > ReorderBufferAddInvalidations(ctx->reorder, xid, buf->origptr,
> > > parsed->nmsgs, parsed->msgs);
> > > ReorderBufferXidSetCatalogChanges(ctx->reorder, xid,
> > > buf->origptr);
> > > }
> > >
> > > If that's right, I think we can merge these if branches. We can call
> > > ReorderBufferXidSetCatalogChanges() for top-txn and in
> > > SnapBuildXidSetCatalogChanges() we mark its subtransactions if top-txn
> > > is in the list. What do you think?
> > >
> >
> > Note that this code doesn't exist in 14 and 15, so we need to create
> > different patches for those.
>
> Right.
>
Okay, then this sounds reasonable to me.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
