Re: Be strict when request to flush past end of WAL in WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish

From: Paul Kim <mok03127(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Be strict when request to flush past end of WAL in WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish
Date: 2026-11-02 06:58:05
Message-ID: 179360268501.99005.9203903628416181672@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 28, 2026, surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I looked at v7. 0001 looks right to me, [...]
> I have a few comments:

Thanks for the review. v8 attached; all four points are in 0001,
and 0002 is unchanged.

> 1. This can also happen during backups, not just with pg_switch_wal().

Right, the commit message now mentions the backup functions too.

> 2. The new comment only talks about the segment boundary, [...]

Taken, with your wording.

> 3. [...] CheckArchiveTimeout() says "If the returned pointer points
> exactly to a segment boundary, assume nothing happened."

I kept the check and extended the comment. Telling the two cases
apart would need a new API, which seems too much for a DEBUG1 message.

> 4. [...] adding Assert(EndPos <= reservedEnd) after the new
> computation [...]

Added.

Regards,
Paul Kim

Attachment Content-Type Size
v8-0001-Fix-end-LSN-reported-for-an-xlog-switch-record-en.patch text/x-patch 3.6 KB
v8-0002-Add-a-test-for-the-end-LSN-of-an-xlog-switch-reco.patch text/x-patch 3.9 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Pyhalov 2026-11-02 06:58:40 Re: Asynchronous MergeAppend
Previous Message Joel Jacobson 2026-11-02 06:46:04 Re: PostgreSQL 19 GA press release draft