From: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add information to rm_redo_error_callback() |
Date: | 2020-10-01 09:18:30 |
Message-ID: | 4b827128-c0ee-bcf5-6ae6-65d5be266285@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 10/1/20 9:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 03:03:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hmm. I still think that knowing at least about a FPW could be an
>> interesting piece of information even here. Anyway, instead of
>> copying a logic that exists already in xlog_outrec(), why not moving
>> the block information print into a separate routine out of the
>> WAL_DEBUG section, and just reuse the same format for the context of
>> the redo error callback? That would also be more consistent with what
>> we do in pg_waldump where we don't show the fork name of a block when
>> it is on a MAIN_FORKNUM. And this would avoid a third copy of the
>> same logic. If we add the XID, previous LSN and the record length
>> on the stack of what is printed, we could just reuse the existing
>> routine, still that's perhaps too much information displayed.
> Seeing nothing, I took a swing at that, and finished with the
> attached that refactors the logic and prints the block information as
> wanted. Any objections to that?
Sorry for the late reply and thanks for looking at it!
Had a look at it and did a few tests: looks all good to me.
No objections at all, thanks!
Bertrand
> --
> Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2020-10-01 09:37:34 | Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData() |
Previous Message | Keisuke Kuroda | 2020-10-01 09:12:54 | Re: Logical replication CPU-bound with TRUNCATE/DROP/CREATE many tables |