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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Diagnostic comment in LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1J-NdZAe5wQirZcZ79JgHB1Ry3OVgay00Q_OJk_nmnD+g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Diagnostic comment in LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Diagnostic comment in LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 5:28 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:39 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Now that you mention it, the code their looks rather suspicious :)
> We acquire the spinlock at the beginning of the function but do not release it if (restart_lsn <=
slot->data.restart_lsn)or if (current_lsn <= slot->data.confirmed_flush).
 
>

Note that we end else if with (current_lsn <=
slot->data.confirmed_flush) and after that there is a new if. We
release lock in both the if/else conditions, so the code is fine as it
is.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Unused function parameter in get_qual_from_partbound()
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication