Re: WAL consistency check facility

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I've updated the patch for review.
>>
>> Thank you for the new patch. This will be hopefully the last round of
>> reviews, we are getting close to something that has an acceptable
>> shape.
>
> One last thing: in XLogRecordAssemble(), could you enforce the value
> of info at the beginning of the routine when wal_consistency[rmid] is
> true? And then use the value of info to decide if include_image is
> true or not? The idea here is to allow callers of XLogInsert() to pass
> by themselves XLR_CHECK_CONSISTENCY and still have consistency checks
> enabled for a given record even if wal_consistency is false for the
> rmgr of the record happening. This would be potentially useful for
> extension and feature developers when debugging some stuff, for some
> builds compiled with a DEBUG flag, or whatever.

And you need to rebase the patch, d5f6f13 has fixed the handling of
xl_info with XLR_INFO_MASK.
--
Michael