| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add information to rm_redo_error_callback() |
| Date: | 2020-08-11 06:29:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20200811062956.GI17986@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 02:45:50PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for updating the patch!
>
> The patch looks good to me. I've set this patch as Ready for Committer.
+ for (block_id = 0; block_id <= record->max_block_id; block_id++)
+ {
+ RelFileNode rnode;
+ ForkNumber forknum;
+ BlockNumber blknum;
Doesn't this potentially create duplicate information in some of the
RM's desc() callbacks, and are we sure that the information provided
is worth having for all the RMs? As one example, gin_desc() looks at
some of the block information, so there are overlaps. It may be
worth thinking about showing more information for has_image and
apply_image if a block is in_use?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-08-11 06:55:11 | Re: massive FPI_FOR_HINT load after promote |
| Previous Message | torikoshia | 2020-08-11 06:24:52 | Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process |