Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1KiBbq=jVOJfTE2g=YYOODaWX9i-ix1Wrrufz9gK8F-0Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 1:33 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:57:09AM +0000, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote: > > You are right. Based on the previous discussions, PageSetLSN() must be called > > after the MakeBufferDirty(). REGBUF_NO_CHANGE has been introduced for skipping > > these requirements. Definitevely, no_change buffers must not be PageSetLSN()'d. > > Other pages, e.g., metabuf, has already been followed the rule. > > At quick glance, this v2 seems kind of right to me: you are setting > the page LSN only when the page is registered in the record and > actually dirtied. > Thanks for the report and looking into it. Pushed! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: