On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 at 03:19, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for updating the patch. I have some comments and questions:
>
> In ReorderBufferAbort():
>
> /*
> * We might have decoded changes for this transaction that could load
> * the cache as per the current transaction's view (consider DDL's
> * happened in this transaction). We don't want the decoding of future
> * transactions to use those cache entries so execute invalidations.
> */
> if (txn->ninvalidations > 0)
> ReorderBufferImmediateInvalidation(rb, txn->ninvalidations,
> txn->invalidations);
>
> I think that if the txn->invalidations_distributed is overflowed, we
> would miss executing the txn->invalidations here. Probably the same is
> true for ReorderBufferForget() and ReorderBufferInvalidate().
I'm accumulating the invalidations in txn->invalidations irrespective
of RBTXN_INVAL_OVERFLOWED txn.
> ---
> I'd like to make it clear again which case we need to execute
> txn->invalidations as well as txn->invalidations_distributed (like in
> ReorderBufferProcessTXN()) and which case we need to execute only
> txn->invalidations (like in ReorderBufferForget() and
> ReorderBufferAbort()). I think it might be worth putting some comments
> about overall strategy somewhere.
I have added comments for this, feel free to reword it if some
changes are required.
The attached v11 version patch has the changes for the same.
Regards,
Vignesh
