Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqT03+uaHXun3ft4LJWNDviKTgWSZDsXiqyNdtcCfeqcgg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least9.5)?  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least9.5)?  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> The first patch (0001-) fixes this problem, preventing the
> problematic state of WAL segments by retarding restart LSN of a
> physical replication slot in a certain condition.

FWIW, I have this patch marked on my list of things to look at, so you
can count me as a reviewer. There are also some approaches that I
would like to test because I rely on replication slots for some
infrastructure. Still...

+            if (oldFlushPtr != InvalidXLogRecPtr &&
+                (restartLSN == InvalidXLogRecPtr ?
+                 oldFlushPtr / XLOG_SEG_SIZE != flushPtr / XLOG_SEG_SIZE :
+                 restartLSN / XLOG_BLCKSZ != flushPtr / XLOG_BLCKSZ))
I find such code patterns not readable.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least9.5)?
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] psql --batch