Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, David Zhang <david(dot)zhang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths
Date: 2022-10-05 07:46:25
Message-ID: Yz02UaqQEfl7MrZj@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Matthias,

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 02:07:05PM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:

My apologies for the time it took me to come back to this thread.
> > + * To accommodate some overhead, hhis MaxXLogRecordSize value allows for
> > s/hhis/this/.
>
> Will be included in the next update..

v8 fails to apply. Could you send a rebased version?

As far as I recall the problems with the block image sizes are solved,
but we still have a bit more to do in terms of the overall record
size. Perhaps there are some parts of the patch you'd like to
revisit?

For now, I have switched the back as waiting on author, and moved it
to the next CF.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-10-05 07:50:25 Re: Move backup-related code to xlogbackup.c/.h
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2022-10-05 07:24:43 Re: Patch proposal: make use of regular expressions for the username in pg_hba.conf