| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Date: | 2016-11-03 08:57:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTU78C7jmPeoHmkDws-PQ-KPtsssFOjiiiBdQtEuxrVyw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Wouldn't the definition of a new redo action make sense then? Say
> SKIPPED. None of the existing actions match the non-apply case.
I just took 5 minutes to look at the code and reason about it, and
something like what your patch is doing would be actually fine. Still
I don't think that checking for the apply flag in the macro routine
should look for has_image. Let's keep things separate.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2016-11-03 09:15:25 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Previous Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2016-11-03 08:56:59 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |