Re: pgsql: Avoid pin scan for replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM - Mailing list pgsql-committers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: pgsql: Avoid pin scan for replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM
Date
Msg-id 20160109180847.hzsjrwlwvsbacfgs@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgsql: Avoid pin scan for replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: pgsql: Avoid pin scan for replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-committers
On 2016-01-09 17:58:01 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 9 January 2016 at 12:23, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2016-01-09 10:13:27 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > src/backend/access/rmgrdesc/nbtdesc.c |    2 +-
> >
> > I've not reviewed the patch, but a very quick glance during a rebase
> > with conflicts showed:
> >
> > @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ btree_desc(StringInfo buf, XLogReaderState *record)
> >             {
> >                 xl_btree_vacuum *xlrec = (xl_btree_vacuum *) rec;
> >
> > -               appendStringInfo(buf, "lastBlockVacuumed %u",
> > +               appendStringInfo(buf, "lastBlockVacuumed %d",
> >                                  xlrec->lastBlockVacuumed);
> >                 break;
> >             }
> >
> > which doesn't look right?
> >
>
> It's right. New value of -1 allowed in that field, so change required to
> allow it to display properly for debug.

Uh. xl_btree_vacuum->lastBlockVacuumed is of type BlockNumber, which in
turn is of type uint32. So no, this isn't correct as is.


pgsql-committers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: pgsql: Add STRICT to some C functions created by the regression tests.
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Avoid pin scan for replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM