From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Include WAL in base backup |
Date: | 2011-01-24 08:03:31 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=oR0=yRhw4pnkkEa1_mcpi-GN=9JoW56mweyRn@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:45, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>>>> - Why not initialize logid and logseg like so?:
>>>>>
>>>>> int logid = startptr.xlogid;
>>>>> int logseg = startptr.xrecoff / XLogSegSize;
>>>>>
>>>>> Then use those in your elog? Seems cleaner to me.
>>>
>>>> Hmm. Yes. Agreed.
>>>
>>> Marginal complaint here: int is the wrong type, I'm pretty sure.
>>
>> And, we should use XLByteToPrevSeg here instead of just =, I think.
>
> Not XLByteToSeg?
Checking... yeah, you are right. We should use XLByteToSeg since
the REDO starting WAL record doesn't exist in the previous WAL
segment when the REDO starting location is a boundary byte.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2011-01-24 08:29:33 | Re: review: FDW API |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-01-24 07:47:45 | Re: Include WAL in base backup |