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

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 19:26, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Thanks for the comments, here is an updated patch handling the above issue.

Regards,
Vignesh