From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-f67.google.com (mail-lf1-f67.google.com [209.85.167.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67A1A46970F for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:31:25 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-lf1-f67.google.com with SMTP id b20so16421712lfp.4 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:31:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:31:23 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Message-ID: <20191127083123.GA2752@atlas> References: <156ce93b495648d6f3fd6c879b0d9aaf56754a1e.1574773773.git.lvasiliev@tarantool.org> <20191126210520.GE23422@atlas> <20191126211701.mhavpytwkemux3vm@tkn_work_nb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191126211701.mhavpytwkemux3vm@tkn_work_nb> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] Move txn from shema to a separate module (use C API instead of FFI) List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Turenko Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org * Alexander Turenko [19/11/27 00:17]: > > > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4427 > > > > > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/lvasiliev/gh-4427-move-some-stuff-from-ffi-to-c-api > > > > Please add a test case. And an explanation of how the fix solves > > the issue. The patch is an overkill - the trace is going through > > box_txn_rollback_to_savepoint, so moving it off ffi to C api > > should be sufficient. > > I would add a bit more context here. The original patch was made by > Sergey O. and I asked for extracting all related functions into its own > 'module'. See links below. > > https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/2019-September/006747.html > https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/2019-September/000734.html > > The moving of just one function should be sufficient, you're right. > However it is not much more work then extracting all those related > function into tnx.{c,h,lua}. So I think it worth to do just here. > > Are you agree that box/lua/txn.* is more proper place for those > functions then box/lua/schema.lua? The move also converts these functions from ffi to plain C. This is what I am objecting against. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia