> 
> 2026. 6. 10. 오후 10:28, ZizhuanLiu X-MAN <44973863@qq.com> 작성:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Original
>> From: cca5507 <cca5507@qq.com>
>> Date: 2026-04-21 19:35
>> To:반지현<rring0727@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
>> Subject: Re: Return value of XLogInsertRecord() for XLOG_SWITCH record
>> 
>> 
>> Hi, thanks for the test!
>> 
>>> One question:
>>> The original code did not apply MAXALIGN() to SizeOfXLogRecord before
>>> adding it. In practice SizeOfXLogRecord is likely already MAXALIGN'd
>>> (given typical record header layout), but could you confirm whether
>>> MAXALIGN() here is a correctness fix, a defensive no-op, or something
>>> that requires a separate note in the commit message
>>> 
>>> Otherwise the change looks good to me, and I think it's a reasonable
>>> cleanup.
>> 
>> I apply the MAXALIGN() to keep it consistent with ReserveXLogSwitch(), the
>> value seems unchanged though.
>> 
>> Attach v2 which is more efficient.
>> 
>> --
>> Regards,
>> ChangAo Chen
> 
> 
> Hi, cca5507,반지현,
> 
> Thanks for your patch and test— it’s sparked my deeper dive into the WAL switch logic.
> 
> I’ve done a preliminary survey of all top-level callers of XLogInsertRecord()
> that generate XLOG_SWITCH records, and grouped them into three categories:
> 1.do_pg_backup_start(), do_pg_backup_stop(), ShutdownXLOG()
>    These callers completely ignore the return value of XLogInsertRecord(),
> so a semantic change here would have zero internal impact on them.
> 
> 2.CheckArchiveTimeout()
>  It stores the returned LSN into switchpoint only for debug logging:
> ```c
> if (XLogSegmentOffset(switchpoint, wal_segment_size) != 0)
>    elog(DEBUG1, "write-ahead log switch forced (\"archive_timeout\"=%d)",
>    XLogArchiveTimeout);
> ```c
> The offset check here is just a trivial debug print, and would not
> introduce functional defects even if the returned LSN changes its meaning.
> 
> 3.pg_switch_wal(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) — the critical public entry point
>    This function directly returns the LSN from XLogInsertRecord() as
> its SQL-level return value exposed to end users, scripts,  and external tooling.
> 
> Risk analysis:
> From the above classification, internal PostgreSQL core logic suffers
> no functional breakage if we unify the return value semantics of XLogInsertRecord().
> 
> However, there are compatibility risks for external consumers relying on pg_switch_wal()’s output:
> Custom applications, backup scripts, and monitoring tools may take
> the returned LSN as the exact position of the XLOG_SWITCH record to
> run space / time range analysis between the switch record and segment end.
> 
> Since we cannot guarantee how existing third-party systems interpret this return
> LSN, altering its definition would break established external workflows and trigger
> unpredictable side effects for legacy deployments.
> 
> That is the main backward-compatibility risk I can identify for this change.
> 
> Happy to hear your thoughts or any corrections to my analysis.
> 
> 
> regards,
> --
> ZizhuanLiu (X-MAN) 
> 44973863@qq.com