Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

At Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:08:27 -0700, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote in
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:56:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Sun, 29 Mar 2020 21:41:01 -0700, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote in
> > > Since pendingSyncHash is always NULL under XLogIsNeeded(), I also removed some
> > > XLogIsNeeded() tests that immediately preceded !pendingSyncHash tests.
> >
> > Sounds reasonable. In AddPendingSync, don't we put
> > Assert(!XLogIsNeeded()) instead of "Assert(pendingSyncHash == NULL)"?
> > The former guarantees the relationship between XLogIsNeeded() and
> > pendingSyncHash, and the existing latter assertion looks redundant as
> > it is placed just after "if (pendingSyncHash)".
>
> The "Assert(pendingSyncHash == NULL)" is indeed useless; I will remove it. I
> am not inclined to replace it with Assert(!XLogIsNeeded()). This static
> function is not likely to get more callers, so the chance of accidentally
> calling it under XLogIsNeeded() is too low.

Agreed.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center