Re: Diagnostic comment in LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Diagnostic comment in LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+UnNNw_o=dM0m+sLKo4ePOOc+Lb7p_iN7GhuEQdZH2-A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Diagnostic comment in LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Diagnostic comment in LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 12:54 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 6:00 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's there in CF. I am fine with PG-15. It will be good to patch the back-branches to have this extra diagnostic
informationavailable.
 
>
> The patch looks to me.
>

{
  slot->candidate_catalog_xmin = xmin;
  slot->candidate_xmin_lsn = current_lsn;
+ elog(DEBUG1, "got new catalog_xmin %u at %X/%X", xmin,
+ LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(current_lsn));
  }
  SpinLockRelease(&slot->mutex);

Today, again looking at this patch, I don't think doing elog inside
spinlock is a good idea. We can either release spinlock before it or
use some variable to remember that we need to write such an elog and
do it after releasing the lock. What do you think? I have noticed that
a nearby function LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot() logs similar
information after releasing spinlock, so it is better to follow the
same here as well.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Record a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side