| 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 |
| 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 |