From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgbf@twiska.com, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:27:53 -0400
Message-ID: <2210888.1594477673@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200710234037.GA24580@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20200710234037.GA24580@alvherre.pgsql>
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?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
In-Reply-To: <2210888.1594477673@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox