| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(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: | 2025-09-17 23:20:20 |
| Message-ID: | aMtCNJiJvg9WNdHD@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 09:40:50AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As a whole, the patch looks like a good balance, able to satisfy the
> new case you want to handle, Melanie. I am guessing that you'd want
> to tweak it and apply it yourself, so please feel free.
Hearing nothing, I'd like to move ahead with this improvement. I have
tweaked a bit the comments, as suggested. If one switches the check
of XLogNeedsFlush() from XLogInsertAllowed() to RecoveryInProgress(),
the recovery test 015 blows up as expected.
Any opinions or more word-smithing required?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Make-XLogFlush-and-XLogNeedsFlush-decision-more-c.patch | text/x-diff | 2.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-09-17 23:22:02 | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-09-17 23:18:31 | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |