Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ncbvO-00053c-JE for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 23:52:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ncbvN-00012z-Da for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 23:52:25 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ncbvN-00012q-4G for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 23:52:25 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ncbvL-0003ua-00 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 23:52:24 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 237NqJSG3535856; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:52:19 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Robert Haas , Markus Wanner , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" , Kyotaro Horiguchi Subject: Re: API stability [was: pgsql: Fix possible recovery trouble if TRUNCATE overlaps a checkpoint.] In-reply-to: References: <2358496.1649168259@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Fri, 08 Apr 2022 08:47:42 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3535854.1649375539.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 19:52:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3535855.1649375539@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier writes: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 11:19:15AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Here are patches for master and v14 to do things this way. Comments? > Thanks for the patches. They look correct. For ~14, I'd rather avoid > the code duplication done by GetVirtualXIDsDelayingChkptEnd() and > HaveVirtualXIDsDelayingChkpt() that could be avoided with an extra > bool argument to the existing routine. Isn't adding another argument an API break? (If there's any outside code calling GetVirtualXIDsDelayingChkpt, which it seems like there might be.) regards, tom lane