| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Don't choke on files that are removed while pg_rewind runs. |
| Date: | 2020-07-14 10:18:41 |
| Message-ID: | 2D8BDE8C-1407-4516-841E-0E502555A901@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 13 Jul 2020, at 14:18, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> That sounds like a good idea with an extra qual in the first part of
> the inner CTE, if coupled with a check to make sure that we never
> get a NULL result. Now there is IMO an argument to not complicate
> more this query as it is not like a lot of tuples would get filtered
> out anyway because of a NULL set of values? I don't have strong
> feelings for one approach or the other, but if I were to choose, I
> would just let the code as-is, without the change in the CTE.
I don't have strong opinions either, both approaches will work, so feel free to
go ahead with the proposed change.
cheers ./daniel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-07-14 10:52:23 | Re: ALTER SYSTEM between upgrades |
| Previous Message | Atsushi Torikoshi | 2020-07-14 10:11:02 | Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view? |