| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com |
| Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |
| Date: | 2020-01-23 12:33:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20200123.213325.1644493868573457113.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:28:54 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > In the same function, I think that setting restBytes to -1 when
> > "useless" is bad style. I would just leave that variable alone when the
> > returned status is not one that receives the number of bytes. So the
> > caller is only entitled to read the value if the returned enum value is
> > such-and-such ("keeping" and "streaming" I think).
>
> That is the only condition. If max_slot_wal_keep_size = -1, The value
> is useless for the two states. I added that explanation to the
> comment of Get(Lsn)Walavailability().
The reply is bogus since restBytes is no longer a parameter of
GetWalAvailability following the next comment.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mahendra Singh Thalor | 2020-01-23 12:55:43 | can we use different function in place of atoi in vacuumdb.c file |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-01-23 12:28:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |