Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?
Date: 2023-12-01 09:57:33
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LSCK1u_sRih7i8MOvp2VkrWD-YGESipAsDWNUrNKjo5w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:30 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 30.11.2023 10:28, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > Again, good catch. Here is my analysis and fix patch.
> > I think it is sufficient to add an initialization for writebuf.
>
> I agree with the change.
>

Pushed!

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Guo 2023-12-01 10:07:03 Re: BUG #17540: Prepared statement: PG switches to a generic query plan which is consistently much slower
Previous Message shveta malik 2023-12-01 09:33:33 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby