| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Date: | 2016-11-03 09:22:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS56Yc+be5pMe+_8UPyJQscUOZ1+yDFwApvuN4O+hyxfg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Actually, I just verified that bimg_info is not even valid if
> has_image is not set.
> In DecodeXLogRecord, we initialize bimg_info only when has_image flag
> is set. So, keeping them
> separate doesn't look a good approach to me. If we keep them separate,
> the output
> of the following assert is undefined:
> Assert(XLogRecHasBlockImage(record, block_id) ||
> !XLogRecBlockImageApply(record, block_id)).
>
> Thoughts??
Yes, that's exactly the reason why we should keep both macros as
checking for separate things: apply implies that has_image is set and
that's normal, hence we could use sanity checks by just using those
macros and not propagating xlogreader.h.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2016-11-03 09:48:51 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-03 09:18:21 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |