At Fri, 9 Sep 2022 09:48:05 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
wrote in
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:53 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > At Mon, 15 Aug 2022 11:16:56 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
> > wrote in
> > > Or we can output the "subxid overwlowed" first.
> >
> > (I prefer this, as that doesn't change the output in the normal case
> > but the anormality will be easilly seen if happens.)
> >
>
> Updated the patch accordingly.
Thanks! Considering the discussion so far, how about adding a comment
like this?
+ appendStringInfoString(buf, "; subxid overflowed");
+
++ /*
++ * subxids and subxid_overflow are mutually exclusive, but we
deliberitely
++ * print the both simultaneously in case the record is broken.
++ */
+ if (xlrec->subxcnt > 0)
+ {
+ appendStringInfo(buf, "; %d subxacts:", xlrec->subxcnt);
+ for (i = 0; i < xlrec->subxcnt; i++)
+ appendStringInfo(buf, " %u", xlrec->xids[xlrec->xcnt +
i]);
+ }
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
