Re: Combine pg_walinspect till_end_of_wal functions with others

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Combine pg_walinspect till_end_of_wal functions with others
Date: 2023-03-10 08:14:40
Message-ID: ZArm8HgJVFjmeN8E@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 04:04:15PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> As long as we provide a sensible default value (so I guess '0/0' to
> mean "no upper bound") and that we therefore don't have to manually
> specify an upper bound if we don't want one I'm fine with keeping the
> functions marked as STRICT.

FWIW, using also InvalidXLogRecPtr as a shortcut to say "Don't fail,
just do the job" is fine by me. Something like a FFF/FFFFFFFF should
just mean the same on a fresh cluster, still it gets risky the longer
the WAL is generated.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-03-10 08:16:53 Re: Compilation error after redesign of the archive modules
Previous Message Richard Guo 2023-03-10 08:13:59 Assert failure of the cross-check for nullingrels