Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:08:27 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	9erthalion6@gmail.com, andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com,
	hlinnaka@iki.fi, michael@paquier.xyz
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Message-ID: <20200330060827.GD2324620@rfd.leadboat.com>
References: <20200321224920.GB1763544@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <20200323.172027.2270553329883636814.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <20200330044101.GA2324620@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <20200330.145611.1603373373605263450.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200330.145611.1603373373605263450.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:56:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Sun, 29 Mar 2020 21:41:01 -0700, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote in 
> > Since pendingSyncHash is always NULL under XLogIsNeeded(), I also removed some
> > XLogIsNeeded() tests that immediately preceded !pendingSyncHash tests.
> 
> Sounds reasonable. In AddPendingSync, don't we put
> Assert(!XLogIsNeeded()) instead of "Assert(pendingSyncHash == NULL)"?
> The former guarantees the relationship between XLogIsNeeded() and
> pendingSyncHash, and the existing latter assertion looks redundant as
> it is placed just after "if (pendingSyncHash)".

The "Assert(pendingSyncHash == NULL)" is indeed useless; I will remove it.  I
am not inclined to replace it with Assert(!XLogIsNeeded()).  This static
function is not likely to get more callers, so the chance of accidentally
calling it under XLogIsNeeded() is too low.