Re: pgsql: Avoid pin scan for replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Avoid pin scan for replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20160109180847.hzsjrwlwvsbacfgs@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Avoid pin scan for replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Avoid pin scan for replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
On 2016-01-09 17:58:01 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 9 January 2016 at 12:23, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 2016-01-09 10:13:27 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > src/backend/access/rmgrdesc/nbtdesc.c | 2 +- > > > > I've not reviewed the patch, but a very quick glance during a rebase > > with conflicts showed: > > > > @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ btree_desc(StringInfo buf, XLogReaderState *record) > > { > > xl_btree_vacuum *xlrec = (xl_btree_vacuum *) rec; > > > > - appendStringInfo(buf, "lastBlockVacuumed %u", > > + appendStringInfo(buf, "lastBlockVacuumed %d", > > xlrec->lastBlockVacuumed); > > break; > > } > > > > which doesn't look right? > > > > It's right. New value of -1 allowed in that field, so change required to > allow it to display properly for debug. Uh. xl_btree_vacuum->lastBlockVacuumed is of type BlockNumber, which in turn is of type uint32. So no, this isn't correct as is.
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: