Re: Incorrect logic in XLogNeedsFlush()

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Incorrect logic in XLogNeedsFlush()
Date: 2025-09-12 05:04:33
Message-ID: aMOp4UVGualz7i6d@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 10:21:27AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> Yeah, asserting it at the end makes sense, as we can ensure that
> XLogFlush() and XLogNeedsFlush() agree on the same thing without
> adding additional overhead. Here is the revised one.

Melanie and Jeff, what do you think?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2025-09-12 05:05:09 Re: Add support for specifying tables in pg_createsubscriber.
Previous Message Corey Huinker 2025-09-12 04:55:56 Re: Extended Statistics set/restore/clear functions.