| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Alexander Korotkov' <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vitaly Davydov <v(dot)davydov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tomas(at)vondra(dot)me" <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Slot's restart_lsn may point to removed WAL segment after hard restart unexpectedly |
| Date: | 2025-06-27 02:22:27 |
| Message-ID: | OSCPR01MB149666CB55DBC2170B1BA9F12F545A@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Alexander,
> Regarding last_saved_restart_lsn_updated, I think the opposite. I
> think we should check if last_saved_restart_lsn_updated is set already
> only if it could promise us some economy of resources. In our case
> the main check only compares two fields of slot. And that fields are
> to be accessed anyway. So, we are not going to save any RAM accesses.
> Therefore, checking for last_saved_restart_lsn_updated seems like
> unnecessary code complication (and I don't see we're doing that in
> other places). So, I'm going to push this patch "as is".
To clarify: I have no objections. Thanks for giving the knowledge.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2025-06-27 02:28:10 | RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2025-06-27 02:09:28 | Re: SQL:2023 JSON simplified accessor support |