Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1KiBbq=jVOJfTE2g=YYOODaWX9i-ix1Wrrufz9gK8F-0Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 1:33 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:57:09AM +0000, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > You are right. Based on the previous discussions, PageSetLSN() must be called
> > after the MakeBufferDirty(). REGBUF_NO_CHANGE has been introduced for skipping
> > these requirements. Definitevely, no_change buffers must not be PageSetLSN()'d.
> > Other pages, e.g., metabuf, has already been followed the rule.
>
> At quick glance, this v2 seems kind of right to me: you are setting
> the page LSN only when the page is registered in the record and
> actually dirtied.
>

Thanks for the report and looking into it. Pushed!

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby