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: 2023-03-27 04:18:57
Message-ID: ZCEZMYI71yMoScE1@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 12:12:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.

FYI, I have gone through 0001 and applied it, after tweaking a bit the
part about block references so as we have only one
XLogRecHasAnyBlockRefs, with its StringInfoData used only locally.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com 2023-03-27 05:18:07 RE: Data is copied twice when specifying both child and parent table in publication
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2023-03-27 04:11:01 Re: Add pg_walinspect function with block info columns