| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <tmunro(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Rationalize GetWalRcv{Write,Flush}RecPtr(). |
| Date: | 2020-04-15 21:24:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20200415212414.GA23819@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Apr-09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> It seems worth pointing out that the new GetWalRcvWriteRecPtr function
> has a different signature from the original one -- so any third-party
> code using the original function will now get a compile failure that
> should alert them that they need to change their code to call
> GetWalRcvFlushRecPtr instead. Maybe we should add a line or two in the
> comments GetWalRcvWriteRecPtr to make this explicit.
After using codesearch.debian.net and finding no results, I decided that
this is not worth the effort.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-04-15 22:47:48 | pgsql: Slightly simplify nbtree split point choice loop. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-15 06:58:41 | pgsql: Fix minor memory leak in pg_dump |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-04-15 21:56:58 | Re: Comment explaining why vacuum needs to push snapshot seems insufficient. |
| Previous Message | Tom Turelinckx | 2020-04-15 21:10:27 | tadarida vs REL_12_STABLE |