Thread: xact_desc

ISTM that xact_desc routines do not work properly when called with
WAL_DEBUG enabled from XLogInsert().

LOG:  INSERT @ 0/3740978: prev 0/3740938; xid 5699: Transaction -
commit: 2008-10-14 03:14:14.866437+01; subxacts: 10447936 0
STATEMENT:  commit;
LOG:  INSERT @ 0/37409F0: prev 0/37409B0; xid 5702: Transaction -
commit: 2008-10-14 03:14:17.687843+01; subxacts: 10447936 0
STATEMENT:  commit;

The arrays... work fine in recovery, just not prior to inserting.

Anyway, that led me a merry dance with other code. 

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> ISTM that xact_desc routines do not work properly when called with
> WAL_DEBUG enabled from XLogInsert().

Well, now that you mention it, that code is utterly, completely broken,
and always has been.  It's passing only the first rdata-chunk of the WAL
record to the print routine :-(

AFAICS the only way to fix it would be to allocate some workspace and
assemble the chunks of the record into that.  Doubtful that it's worth
it --- I'd be inclined to just remove the code instead.
        regards, tom lane

On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 23:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > ISTM that xact_desc routines do not work properly when called with
> > WAL_DEBUG enabled from XLogInsert().
> 
> Well, now that you mention it, that code is utterly, completely broken,
> and always has been.  It's passing only the first rdata-chunk of the WAL
> record to the print routine :-(
> 
> AFAICS the only way to fix it would be to allocate some workspace and
> assemble the chunks of the record into that.  Doubtful that it's worth
> it --- I'd be inclined to just remove the code instead.

Will remove, with extreme prejudice.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support