On October 15, 2015 1:02:04 PM GMT+02:00, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >On 15 October 2015 at 17:43, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >>> I guess since it'll be InvalidRepOriginId otherwise, that makes >sense. >> >> 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 >xl_xact_parsed_commit. > >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 >patch.
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? > >Maybe: > >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. Andres --- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers