| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()? |
| Date: | 2024-04-11 00:23:34 |
| Message-ID: | ZhcthvKES_i6oVUC@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 03:28:22PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I can understand this comment as I am aware of this code but not sure
> it would be equally easy for the people first time looking at this
> code. One may try to find the equivalent assertion in
> _hash_freeovflpage(). The alternative could be: "Ensure that the
> required flags are set when there are no tuples. See
> _hash_freeovflpage().". I am also fine if you prefer to go with your
> proposed comment.
Yes, I can see your point about why that's confusing. Your suggestion
is much better, so after a second look I've used your version of the
comment and applied the patch on HEAD.
I am wondering if we have other problems like that with dirty buffers
at replay. Perhaps I should put my nose more onto the replay paths
and extend these automated checks with wal_consistency_checking.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-04-11 00:35:38 | Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres |
| Previous Message | Tom Kincaid | 2024-04-11 00:23:19 | Re: post-freeze damage control |