| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect logic in XLogNeedsFlush() |
| Date: | 2025-09-12 02:37:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tpH9jPq5Qi40LYSATZsjZq_axZ-DPrO-RUYmsbHta3Qg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 4:51 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 09:58:08AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > It seems like XLogFlush() and XLogNeedsFlush() should use the same
> > test, otherwise you could always get some confusing inconsistency.
> > Right?
>
> Even if the checks are duplicated (dependency could be documented as
> well), it would make sense to me to plant a check of XLogNeedsFlush()
> inside XLogFlush(), I think. I have not tried if some parts of the
> tests blow up when trying to do that even after switching
> XLogNeedsFlush() to check if WAL inserts are allowed rather than if we
> are in recovery.
+1, it really makes XLogFlush() to directly check using
XLogNeedsFlush() after adding the "WAL inserts are allowed" check in
XLogNeedsFlush(), this is the best way to avoid any inconsistencies in
future as well.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-09-12 03:15:36 | Re: Incorrect logic in XLogNeedsFlush() |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-09-12 02:25:55 | Re: PostgreSQL 18 GA press release draft |