Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
Date
Msg-id 2210888.1594477673@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk