From b6182081be4a795d70b966be2542ad32d1ffbc20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Lane Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 20:49:44 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Remove duplicate code from ReorderBufferCleanupTXN(). Andres is apparently the only hacker who thinks this code is better as-is. I (tgl) follow some of his logic, but the fact that it's setting off warnings from static code analyzers seems like a sufficient reason to put the complexity into a comment rather than the code. Aleksander Alekseev Discussion: <20160404190345.54d84ee8@fujitsu> --- .../replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c | 20 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c b/src/backend/replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c index 43b584cf7e..9b430b9acb 100644 --- a/src/backend/replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c +++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c @@ -1158,17 +1158,15 @@ ReorderBufferCleanupTXN(ReorderBuffer *rb, ReorderBufferTXN *txn) txn->base_snapshot_lsn = InvalidXLogRecPtr; } - /* delete from list of known subxacts */ - if (txn->is_known_as_subxact) - { - /* NB: nsubxacts count of parent will be too high now */ - dlist_delete(&txn->node); - } - /* delete from LSN ordered list of toplevel TXNs */ - else - { - dlist_delete(&txn->node); - } + /* + * Remove TXN from its containing list. + * + * Note: if txn->is_known_as_subxact, we are deleting the TXN from its + * parent's list of known subxacts; this leaves the parent's nsubxacts + * count too high, but we don't care. Otherwise, we are deleting the TXN + * from the LSN-ordered list of toplevel TXNs. + */ + dlist_delete(&txn->node); /* now remove reference from buffer */ hash_search(rb->by_txn, -- 2.40.0