From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 757634191(at)qq(dot)com, japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 回复: Why is XLOG_FPI_FOR_HINT always need backups? |
Date: | 2021-07-21 02:23:20 |
Message-ID: | d6134e00-44ee-83c0-7da1-e2eb4ebd4738@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/07/19 10:16, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Sat, 17 Jul 2021 00:14:34 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote in
>> Thanks for updating the patch! It basically looks good to me.
>>
>> * Full-page image (FPI) records contain nothing else but a backup
>> * block (or multiple backup blocks). Every block reference must
>> * include a full-page image - otherwise there would be no point in
>> * this record.
>>
>> The above comment also needs to be updated?
>
> In short, no. In contrast to the third paragraph, the first paragraph
> should be thought that it is describing XLOG_FPI. However, actually
> it is not super obvious so it's better to make it clearer. Addition to
> that, it seems to me (yes, to *me*) somewhat confused between "block
> reference", "backup block" and "full-page image". So I'd like to
> adjust the paragraph as the following.
Understood. Thanks for updating the patch!
I slightly modified the comments and pushed the patch. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-07-21 02:25:00 | ORDER BY pushdowns seem broken in postgres_fdw |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-07-21 02:21:23 | Re: wrong relkind error messages |