On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 12:46 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 4:36 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> >
> > I am thinking can't we make it more deterministic such that when we
> > get the status first time if we find some transactions that are in
> > commit phase then we should just wait for those transaction to get
> > committed? One idea is to get the list of xids in commit phase and
> > next time when we get the list we can just compare and in next status
> > if we don't get any xids in commit phase which were in commit phase
> > during previous status then we are done. But not sure is this worth
> > the complexity? Mabe not but shall we add some comment explaining the
> > case and also explaining why this corner case is not harmful?
>
> I also think it's not worth the complexity for this corner case which is
> rare.
Yeah, complexity is one part, but I feel improving such less often
cases could add performance burden for more often cases where we need
to either maintain and invalidate the cache on the publisher or send
the list of all such xids to the subscriber over the network.
> So, I have added some comments in wait_for_publisher_status() to
> mention the same.
>
I agree that at this stage it is good to note down in comments, and if
we face such cases often, then we can improve it in the future.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
