On Monday, March 21, 2022 6:01 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 9:10 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 3. Can we add a simple test for it in one of the existing test
> > > files(say in 001_rep_changes.pl)?
> >
> > added a simple test.
> >
>
> This doesn't verify if the transaction is skipped. I think we should
> extend this test to check for a DEBUG message in the Logs (you need to
> probably set log_min_messages to DEBUG1 for this test). As an example,
> you can check the patch [1]. Also, it seems by mistake you have added
> wait_for_catchup() twice.
I added a testcase to check the DEBUG message.
> Few other comments:
> =================
> 1. Let's keep the parameter name as skipped_empty_xact in
> OutputPluginUpdateProgress so as to not confuse with the other patch's
> [2] keep_alive parameter. I think in this case we must send the
> keep_alive message so as to not make the syncrep wait whereas in the
> other patch we only need to send it periodically based on
> wal_sender_timeout parameter.
> 2. The new function SyncRepEnabled() seems confusing to me as the
> comments in SyncRepWaitForLSN() clearly state why we need to first
> read the parameter 'sync_standbys_defined' without any lock then read
> it again with a lock if the parameter is true. So, I just put that
> check back and also added a similar check in WalSndUpdateProgress.
> 3.
> @@ -1392,11 +1481,21 @@ pgoutput_truncate(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx,
> ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
> continue;
>
> relids[nrelids++] = relid;
> +
> + /* Send BEGIN if we haven't yet */
> + if (txndata && !txndata->sent_begin_txn)
> + pgoutput_send_begin(ctx, txn);
> maybe_send_schema(ctx, change, relation, relentry);
> }
>
> if (nrelids > 0)
> {
> + txndata = (PGOutputTxnData *) txn->output_plugin_private;
> +
> + /* Send BEGIN if we haven't yet */
> + if (txndata && !txndata->sent_begin_txn)
> + pgoutput_send_begin(ctx, txn);
> +
>
> Why do we need to try sending the begin in the second check? I think
> it should be sufficient to do it in the above loop.
>
> I have made these and a number of other changes in the attached patch.
> Do let me know what you think of the attached?
The changes look good to me.
And I did some basic tests for the patch and didn’t find some other problems.
Attach the new version patch.
Best regards,
Hou zj
