| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, tejeswarm(at)hotmail(dot)com, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Wood <hexexpert(at)comcast(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corruption during WAL replay |
| Date: | 2021-09-24 19:37:51 |
| Message-ID: | 2442200.1632512271@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I like this patch.
I think the basic idea is about right, but I'm not happy with the
three-way delayChkpt business; that seems too cute by three-quarters.
I think two independent boolean flags, one saying "I'm preventing
checkpoint start" and one saying "I'm preventing checkpoint completion",
would be much less confusing and also more future-proof. Who's to say
that we won't ever need both states to be set in the same process?
I also dislike the fact that the patch has made procarray.h depend
on proc.h ... maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that there was a reason
for keeping those independent, if indeed this hasn't actually resulted
in a circular-includes situation. If we avoid inventing that enum type
then there's no need for that. If we do need an enum, maybe it could
be put in some already-common prerequisite header.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-09-24 20:08:44 | Re: Corruption during WAL replay |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-09-24 19:16:20 | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences |