| 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 09:18:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSvgt0WHLCUGxSsVeuPKAknkyY_Wd2PtSBLDAuBdwiKQw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm not getting why we should introduce a new redo action and return
> from the function beforehand.
Per my last email, same conclusion from here :)
Sorry if I am picky and noisy on many points, I am trying to think
about the value of each change introduced in this patch, particularly
if they are meaningful, can be improved in some way, or can be
simplified and make the code more simple.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-03 09:22:58 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Previous Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2016-11-03 09:15:25 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |