Обсуждение: Incorrect overflow check condition for WAL segment size
Hi all, Although we restrict the WAL segment size to 64 MB as upper limit, the following piece of code in guc.c (line 715) seems confusing to me. #if XLOG_SEG_SIZE < (1024*1024) || XLOG_BLCKSZ > (1024*1024*1024) #error XLOG_SEG_SIZE must be between 1MB and 1GB #endif Either the comment is wrongly written or the check for overflow condition has to be fixed. Assuming the overflow check condition to be erroneous, I've attached a patch to fix this. -- Thanks & Regards, Kuntal Ghosh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote: > Either the comment is wrongly written or the check for overflow > condition has to be fixed. Assuming the overflow check condition to be > erroneous, I've attached a patch to fix this. Good catch. Interesting copy-pasto from 88e9823. -- Michael
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote: >> Either the comment is wrongly written or the check for overflow >> condition has to be fixed. Assuming the overflow check condition to be >> erroneous, I've attached a patch to fix this. > > Good catch. Interesting copy-pasto from 88e9823. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 11/08/16 18:12, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I've attached a patch to fix this. >> Good catch. Interesting copy-pasto from 88e9823. > Committed. Hmm, somehow this fix (60379f66c8 for master) does not seem to appear in the 9.5 and 9.6 branches, yet the latter both include commit 88e9823. -- Markus Nullmeier http://www.g-vo.org German Astrophysical Virtual Observatory (GAVO)
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Markus Nullmeier <dq124@uni-heidelberg.de> wrote: > On 11/08/16 18:12, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I've attached a patch to fix this. >>> Good catch. Interesting copy-pasto from 88e9823. >> Committed. > > Hmm, somehow this fix (60379f66c8 for master) does not seem to appear > in the 9.5 and 9.6 branches, yet the latter both include commit 88e9823. It didn't seem important to back-patch it, so I didn't. It also occurred to me that there was a small chance of breaking the build for somebody who is skating by today, which would annoy that person without being likely to benefit anyone else. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company