Re: repeated decoding of prepared transactions

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:36 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:

> Few comments on the first patch:
> 1. We can't remove ReorderBufferSkipPrepare because we rely on that in
> SnapBuildDistributeNewCatalogSnapshot.
> 2. I have changed the name of the variable from
> snapshot_was_exported_at_lsn to snapshot_was_exported_at but I am
> still not very sure about this naming because there are times when we
> don't export snapshot and we still set this like when creating slots
> with CRS_NOEXPORT_SNAPSHOT or when creating via SQL APIs. The other
> name that comes to mind is initial_consistency_at, what do you think?
> 3. Changed comments at various places.
>
> Please find the above changes as a separate patch, if you like you can
> include these in the main patch.
>
> Apart from the above, I think the comments related to docs in my
> previous email [1] are still valid, can you please take care of those.
>
> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1Kr34_TiREr57Wpd%3D3%3D03x%3D1n55DAjwJPGpHAEc4dWfUQ%40mail.gmail.com

I've added Amit's changes-patch as well as addressed comments related
to docs in the attached patch.

>On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:34 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>One observation while verifying the patch I noticed that most of
>ReplicationSlotPersistentData structure members are displayed in
>pg_replication_slots, but I did not see snapshot_was_exported_at_lsn
>being displayed. Is this intentional? If not intentional we can
>include snapshot_was_exported_at_lsn in pg_replication_slots.

I've updated snapshot_was_exported_at_  member to pg_replication_slots as well.
Do have a look and let me know if there are any comments.

regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia