| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jan Nidzwetzki <jan(at)planetscale(dot)com>, Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari(dot)slg01(at)gmail(dot)com>, ♂π≌26218 <1991230470(at)qq(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: START_REPLICATION silently truncates an overlong LSN component |
| Date: | 2026-10-20 09:31:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwF1VdMww-2s4To3W14Gw48-=4=aUWDyw-ER5WTVm0RTBA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 4:36 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > As with the test in 0001, I'm not sure this one
> > needs to be committed.
I think we can omit the test in 0003. We made the similar change in pg_rewind
in f31d6fbc31d without adding a test, and pg_parse_lsn() is already covered
through other callers.
Regarding 0001 and 0002 patches, they look good to me.
So barring any objections, I will commit them.
> I also checked the source, and found that read_backup_label() parses the %X/%08X
> in fscanf(). Can it be also replaced?
I think that's possible.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2026-10-20 11:29:38 | RE: START_REPLICATION silently truncates an overlong LSN component |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-10-20 07:54:30 | Re: BUG #19760: CLUSTER loses a row the transaction inserted and then updated in a rolled-back subtransaction |