Re: Enhanced rmgr desc routines test !has_image, not has_data

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Enhanced rmgr desc routines test !has_image, not has_data
Date: 2023-04-19 17:43:04
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkzTo=kJ9krKyVTopnNC96eLmYH1cCGZcXhRk5SZEu_9Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:10 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Yeah, I agree that your suggestion is more useful for debugging when a
> record includes both a block image and some data associated to it.
> So, +1.

Okay, pushed that fix just now.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-04-19 17:43:14 Re: Direct I/O
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-04-19 17:23:26 pg_stat_io not tracking smgrwriteback() is confusing