| From: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
| Date: | 2020-09-21 07:05:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAFPTHDZ0PBY0PTkqWEiScG9Pfdd1VUjDQDXy1ww7W7idfyO_Jg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Why can't we call ReorderBufferCleanupTXN() from
> ReorderBufferFinishPrepared after your changes?
>
Since the truncate already removed the changes, it would fail on the
below Assert in ReorderBufferCleanupTXN()
/* Check we're not mixing changes from different transactions. */
Assert(change->txn == txn);
regards.
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-09-21 07:16:47 | Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers |
| Previous Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2020-09-21 06:21:23 | Is deduplicate_items ever used in nbtree? |