Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location
Date: 2023-10-12 18:10:31
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ7wQZMz02FHe+074rE+kO-WFLpRpEqEse5Y4vNmz+qhw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 3:27 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> I have looked at 0001, for now.. And it looks OK to me.

Cool. I've committed that one. Thanks for the review.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2023-10-12 18:20:01 Re: Pro et contra of preserving pg_proc oids during pg_upgrade
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2023-10-12 18:00:39 Re: Pro et contra of preserving pg_proc oids during pg_upgrade