On 10/05/2014 10:43 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Heikki,
>
>> Here are new patches, again the first one is just refactoring, and the second
>> one contains this feature. I'm planning to commit the first one shortly, and
>> the second one later after people have had a chance to look at it.
>
> I looked at it. It looks ok, but for a few spurious spacing changes here
> and there. No big deal.
>
> I tested it, everything I tested behaved as expected, so it is ok for me.
Thanks!
I committed the refactoring patch earlier, and just went through the
second patch again. I wordsmithed the documentation and comments, and
fixed the documentation on the log format. I also fixed the logging of
skipped transactions so that the schedule lag is reported correctly for
them.
One thing bothers me with the log format. Here's an example:
> 0 81 4621 0 1412881037 912698 3005
> 0 82 6173 0 1412881037 914578 4304
> 0 83 skipped 0 1412881037 914578 5217
> 0 83 skipped 0 1412881037 914578 5099
> 0 83 4722 0 1412881037 916203 3108
> 0 84 4142 0 1412881037 918023 2333
> 0 85 2465 0 1412881037 919759 740
Note how the transaction counter is not incremented for skipped
transactions. That's understandable, since we're not including skipped
transactions in the number of transactions executed, but it means that
the skipped transactions don't have a unique ID. That's annoying.
Here's a new version of the patch. I'll sleep over it before committing,
but I think it's fine now, except maybe for the unique ID thing.
- Heikki
