Thank you. I prefer to keep the comments of these three functions *DecodeInsert()*, *DecodeUpdate()*, and *DecodeDelete()* aligned. ``` /* * Parse XLOG_HEAP_INSERT (not MULTI_INSERT!) records into tuplebufs. * * Inserts can contain the new tuple. */ static void DecodeInsert(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, XLogRecordBuffer *buf)
/* * Parse XLOG_HEAP_UPDATE and XLOG_HEAP_HOT_UPDATE, which have the same layout * in the record, from wal into proper tuplebufs. * * Updates can possibly contain a new tuple and the old primary key. */ static void DecodeUpdate(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, XLogRecordBuffer *buf) /* * Parse XLOG_HEAP_DELETE from wal into proper tuplebufs. * * Deletes can possibly contain the old primary key. */ static void DecodeDelete(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, XLogRecordBuffer *buf) ``` Best wishes Yongtao Huang Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> 于2024年1月17日周三 09:10写道： > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 8:47 AM Yongtao Huang <yongtaoh2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I think the comment above the function DecodeInsert() >> in src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c should be >> + * *Inserts *can contain the new tuple. >> , rather than >> - * *Deletes *can contain the new tuple. >> > > Nice catch. +1. > > I kind of wonder if it would be clearer to state that "XLOG_HEAP_INSERT > can contain the new tuple", in order to differentiate it from > XLOG_HEAP2_MULTI_INSERT. > > Thanks > Richard >
