From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
Date: | 2023-11-16 17:26:33 |
Message-ID: | 202311161726.qzbi7b7ln6lk@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-Nov-16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 5:21 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > I meant code like this
> >
> > memcpy(&key.rlocator, rlocator, sizeof(RelFileLocator));
> > key.forknum = forknum;
> > entry = blockreftable_lookup(brtab->hash, key);
>
> Ah, I hadn't thought about that. Another way of handling that might be
> to add = {0} to the declaration of key. But I can do the initializer
> thing too if you think it's better. I'm not sure if there's an
> argument that the initializer might optimize better.
I think the {0} initializer is good enough, given a comment to indicate
why.
> > It's not clear to me if WalSummarizerCtl->pending_lsn if fulfilling some
> > purpose or it's just a leftover from prior development. I see it's only
> > read in an assertion ... Maybe if we think this cross-check is
> > important, it should be turned into an elog? Otherwise, I'd remove it.
>
> I've been thinking about that. One thing I'm not quite sure about
> though is introspection. Maybe there should be a function that shows
> summarized_tli and summarized_lsn from WalSummarizerData, and maybe it
> should expose pending_lsn too.
True.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-11-16 17:33:55 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-11-16 17:23:00 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |