Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200711212630.GA6825@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Jul-11, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2020-Jul-09, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> I think we should define InvalidXLogSegNo to be ~((uint64)0) and add a > >> macro to test for that. > > > That's overkill really. I just used zero. Running > > contrib/test_decoding under valgrind, this now passes. > > > I think I'd rather do away with the compare to zero, and initialize to > > something else in GetWALAvailability, though. What we're doing seems > > unclean and unclear. > > Is zero really not a valid segment number? No, but you cannot retreat from that ... -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: