From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: alvherre@kurilemu.de
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Race conditions in logical decoding
In-reply-to: <202601282119.cosfxnhvtqpo@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <202601282119.cosfxnhvtqpo@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FQ=3F=3DC3=3D81lvaro=3F=3D?=
 Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
   message dated "Wed, 28 Jan 2026 22:48:45 +0100."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 20:52:47 +0100
Message-ID: <44674.1769716367@localhost>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/44674.1769716367%40localhost>
Precedence: bulk

=C3=81lvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:

> On 2026-Jan-23, Antonin Houska wrote:
>=20
> > > This way you wait repeatedly for one transaction until it is marked
> > > committed; and once it does, you don't test it again.
> >=20
> > Sure, that's much beter. Thanks.
>=20
> Actually, I wonder if it would make sense to sleep just once after
> testing all the transactions for whether they are marked committed (not
> once per transaction); and after sleeping, we only test again those that
> were not marked committed in the previous iteration.  I think you would
> end up doing less tests overall.  Something like this

I suppose that TransactionIdDidCommit() returns false pretty rarely, so one
iteration is sufficient in almost all cases. Besides that, I preferred simp=
ler
code because it's easier to test (It's not trivial to have debugger reach t=
he
conditions.) However it's just my preference - no real objections to your
approach.

--=20
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com