| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgbf(at)twiska(dot)com, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view |
| Date: | 2020-07-11 14:27:53 |
| Message-ID: | 2210888.1594477673@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-07-11 15:51:59 | Re: Policy on cross-posting to multiple lists |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-11 14:27:02 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |