MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAEoWx2=pYvfRthXHTzSrOsf5_FfyY4zJyK4zV2v4W=yjUij1cA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEoWx2=pYvfRthXHTzSrOsf5_FfyY4zJyK4zV2v4W=yjUij1cA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:27:29 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAExHW5usKxNkgGdM+6cw-RiDN55MLSmoUC1LBi6tQ3eYMuZm0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Refactor replication origin state reset helpers
To: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAExHW5usKxNkgGdM%2B6cw-RiDN55MLSmoUC1LBi6tQ3eYMuZm0Q%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 6:58=E2=80=AFAM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>
> Hi Hacker,
>
> While reviewing patches [1] and [2], I noticed some duplicate code of cle=
aring replication origin states, I am proposing a small patch that removes =
the duplicate code blocks by introducing a couple helper functions. No func=
tional change at all.
>

The new functions bring together the global variables that need to be
reset under certain conditions. The functions will help not to miss
resetting some variable. However, this can be a mild backpatching
pain. So, I am +.5 on this.

If we go this route, we at least need to declare the new functions as
static inline and move them to a header file instead of .c file.

Further, does it make sense to put together all the state variables
into a single structure?

It's also quite easy to confuse between these functions and
replorigin_session_reset(). It's not clear where the boundaries of the
latter end and where those of the new ones start. I think the latter
deals with the shared memory structures while the new ones deal with
the backend local state. And then there's replorigin_reset() which
adds to the confusion. That function doesn't call
replorigin_session_reset() which the other two callers of
replorigin_session_clear_state() call. Why? I think there is more to
clean here than what's in the patch. That doesn't mean that we cannot
accept this patch without larger cleanup, but it should not add to the
existing confusion.

--=20
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat