Re: Add pg_walinspect function with block info columns

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pg(at)bowt(dot)ie, melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com, boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Add pg_walinspect function with block info columns
Date: 2023-03-25 03:12:50
Message-ID: ZB5msr2QS1ZbMltj@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10:54:40PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Please see the attached v4 patch set addressing all the review comments.

- desc = GetRmgr(XLogRecGetRmid(record));
- id = desc.rm_identify(XLogRecGetInfo(record));
-
- if (id == NULL)
- id = psprintf("UNKNOWN (%x)", XLogRecGetInfo(record) & ~XLR_INFO_MASK);
-
- initStringInfo(&rec_desc);
- desc.rm_desc(&rec_desc, record);
-
- /* Block references. */
- initStringInfo(&rec_blk_ref);
- XLogRecGetBlockRefInfo(record, false, true, &rec_blk_ref, &fpi_len);
-
- main_data_len = XLogRecGetDataLen(record);

I don't see any need to move this block of code? This leads to
unnecessary diffs, potentially making backpatch a bit harder. Either
way is not a big deal, still.. Except for this bit, 0001 looks fine
by me.

OUT reltablespace oid,
OUT reldatabase oid,
OUT relfilenode oid,
OUT relblocknumber int8,
+ OUT blockid int2,
+ OUT start_lsn pg_lsn,
+ OUT end_lsn pg_lsn,
+ OUT prev_lsn pg_lsn,

I'd still put the LSN data before the three OIDs for consistency with
the structures, though my opinion does not seem to count much..
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-03-25 05:03:58 Re: refactoring relation extension and BufferAlloc(), faster COPY
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-03-25 03:00:44 Re: Reconcile stats in find_tabstat_entry() and get rid of PgStat_BackendFunctionEntry