| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 07:27:19 |
| Message-ID: | ZSef15UpksauWnbU@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:43:34PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> - I combined what were previously 0002 and 0003 into a single patch,
> since that's how this would get committed.
>
> - I fixed up some comments.
>
> - I updated commit messages.
>
> Hopefully this is getting close to good enough.
I have looked at 0001, for now.. And it looks OK to me.
+ * Nonetheless, this case is simpler than the normal cases handled
+ * above, which must check for changes in doPageWrites and RedoRecPtr.
+ * Those checks are only needed for records that can contain
+ * full-pages images, and an XLOG_SWITCH record never does.
+ Assert(fpw_lsn == InvalidXLogRecPtr);
Right, that's the core reason behind the refactoring. The assertion
is a good idea.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andy Fan | 2023-10-12 07:52:07 | Re: A new strategy for pull-up correlated ANY_SUBLINK |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-10-12 07:05:32 | Re: Problem, partition pruning for prepared statement with IS NULL clause. |