Re: pg_decode_message vs skip_empty_xacts and xact_wrote_changes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: pg_decode_message vs skip_empty_xacts and xact_wrote_changes
Date
Msg-id CAExHW5sqY8AS5WqyTD1v=V+pAZvtHXcZ5++2z1fn7NcpBmhj_g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_decode_message vs skip_empty_xacts and xact_wrote_changes  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_decode_message vs skip_empty_xacts and xact_wrote_changes
Re: pg_decode_message vs skip_empty_xacts and xact_wrote_changes
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Vignesh,
Thanks for working on this.

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 4:52 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a patch having the fix for the same. I have not added any
> tests as the existing tests cover this scenario. The same issue is
> present in back branches too.

Interesting, we have a test for this scenario and it accepts erroneous
output :).

> v1-0001-Call-pg_output_begin-in-pg_decode_message-if-it-i_master.patch
> can be applied on master, PG15 and PG14,
> v1-0001-Call-pg_output_begin-in-pg_decode_message-if-it-i_PG13.patch
> patch can be applied on PG13, PG12 and PG11.
> Thoughts?

I noticed this when looking at Tomas's patches for logical decoding of
sequences. The code block you have added is repeated in
pg_decode_change() and pg_decode_truncate(). It might be better to
push the conditions in pg_output_begin() itself so that any future
callsite of pg_output_begin() automatically takes care of these
conditions.

Otherwise the patches look good to me.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alena Rybakina
Date:
Subject: Re: MergeJoin beats HashJoin in the case of multiple hash clauses
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Assert !bms_overlap(joinrel->relids, required_outer)