Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgbf(at)twiska(dot)com, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
Date: 2020-07-11 14:27:53
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2020-Jul-09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think we should define InvalidXLogSegNo to be ~((uint64)0) and add a
>> macro to test for that.

> That's overkill really. I just used zero. Running
> contrib/test_decoding under valgrind, this now passes.

> I think I'd rather do away with the compare to zero, and initialize to
> something else in GetWALAvailability, though. What we're doing seems
> unclean and unclear.

Is zero really not a valid segment number?

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2020-07-11 15:51:59 Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-07-11 14:27:02 Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk