Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HMhtBR0u6_T=aTNY2B2eY4bswmHd-2Wt7Fc+fUD-+9aWQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
So here's my attempt to rewrite this logic. I ended up refactoring a
bit because I found it unnecessarily confusing having the mode
branches in several places. I think it's much clearer just having two
separate pieces of logic for RBM_NEW and the extension cases since all
they have in common is the ReadBuffer call.

I have to say, it scares the hell out of me that there are no
regression tests for this code. I'm certainly not comfortable
committing it without a few other people reading it if I haven't even
run the code once. At least I know it compiles...

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ants Aasma
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory ordering issue in LWLockRelease, WakeupWaiters, WALInsertSlotRelease
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation