On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:02 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I agree that it could be better to have a new lock tag. Another point is that
> > > > the remote xid and Local xid could be the same in some rare cases, so I think
> > > > we might need to add another identifier to make it unique.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe :
> > > > locktag_field1 : subscription oid
> > > > locktag_field2 : xid(remote or local)
> > > > locktag_field3 : 0(lock for stream block)/1(lock for transaction)
> > >
> > > Or I think we can use locktag_field2 for remote xid and locktag_field3
> > > for local xid.
> > >
> >
> > We can do that way as well but OTOH, I think for the local
> > transactions we don't need subscription oid, so field1 could be
> > InvalidOid and field2 will be xid of local xact. Won't that be better?
>
> This would work. But I'm a bit concerned that we cannot identify which
> subscriptions the lock belongs to when checking pg_locks view.
>
Fair point. I think if the user wants, she can join with
pg_stat_subscription based on PID and find the corresponding
subscription. However, if we want to identify everything via pg_locks
then I think we should also mention classid or database id as field1.
So, it would look like: field1: (pg_subscription's oid or current db
id); field2: OID of subscription in pg_subscription; field3: local or
remote xid; field4: 0/1 to differentiate between remote and local xid.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
