On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 5:17 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Pushed.
> >
> > I think this was a good change, but there's at least one other problem
> > here: within ReorderBufferRestoreChanges, the while (restored <
> > max_changes_in_memory && *segno <= last_segno) doesn't seem to contain
> > a CFI. Note that this can loop either by repeatedly failing to open a
> > file, or by repeatedly reading from a file and passing the data read
> > to ReorderBufferRestoreChange. So I think there should just be a CFI
> > at the top of this loop to make sure both cases are covered.
>
> Agreed. The failures due to file operations can make this loop
> unpredictable in terms of time, so it is a good idea to have CFI at
> the top of this loop.
>
> I can take care of this unless there are any objections or you want to
> do it. We have backpatched the previous similar change, so I think we
> should backpatch this as well. What do you think?
Please go ahead. +1 for back-patching.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
