| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgbf(at)twiska(dot)com, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view |
| Date: | 2020-07-11 21:26:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20200711212630.GA6825@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Jul-11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2020-Jul-09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I think we should define InvalidXLogSegNo to be ~((uint64)0) and add a
> >> macro to test for that.
>
> > That's overkill really. I just used zero. Running
> > contrib/test_decoding under valgrind, this now passes.
>
> > I think I'd rather do away with the compare to zero, and initialize to
> > something else in GetWALAvailability, though. What we're doing seems
> > unclean and unclear.
>
> Is zero really not a valid segment number?
No, but you cannot retreat from that ...
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-07-11 22:03:22 | Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-11 19:59:12 | Re: output columns of \dAo and \dAp |