| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com, jdnelson(at)dyn(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)? |
| Date: | 2017-08-28 11:14:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqT03+uaHXun3ft4LJWNDviKTgWSZDsXiqyNdtcCfeqcgg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> The first patch (0001-) fixes this problem, preventing the
> problematic state of WAL segments by retarding restart LSN of a
> physical replication slot in a certain condition.
FWIW, I have this patch marked on my list of things to look at, so you
can count me as a reviewer. There are also some approaches that I
would like to test because I rely on replication slots for some
infrastructure. Still...
+ if (oldFlushPtr != InvalidXLogRecPtr &&
+ (restartLSN == InvalidXLogRecPtr ?
+ oldFlushPtr / XLOG_SEG_SIZE != flushPtr / XLOG_SEG_SIZE :
+ restartLSN / XLOG_BLCKSZ != flushPtr / XLOG_BLCKSZ))
I find such code patterns not readable.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-08-28 12:26:38 | Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-08-28 11:02:40 | Re: [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-08-28 11:28:52 | Re: psql --batch |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-08-28 11:02:40 | Re: [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)? |