On 02.11.2010 00:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark<gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first
>>> WAL segment, with log==seg==0.
>> This smells very much like
>> I wonder if there's some defensive programming way to avoid bugs of this sort.
> It strikes me that it's not good if there isn't a recognizable "invalid"
> value for WAL locations. These bits of code show that there is reason
> to have one. Maybe we should teach initdb to start the WAL one segment
> later, and then 0/0 *would* mean "invalid", and we could revert these
> other hacks.
Good idea. That can even be back-patched to 9.0, it should have no
effect on existing installations,
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-11-02 09:40:42|
|Subject: pgsql: Bootstrap WAL to begin at segment logid=0 logseg=1(000000010000|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-11-02 07:13:58|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Custom code int(32|64) => text conversions
out of performance reasons|