Re: [PATCH] Teach pg_waldump to extract FPIs from the WAL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Christensen
Subject Re: [PATCH] Teach pg_waldump to extract FPIs from the WAL
Date
Msg-id CAOxo6XLhKqiacFPSo2BhZU6Qwwy3wDEsVjPmTsgHz9Pr-aVyUg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Teach pg_waldump to extract FPIs from the WAL  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Teach pg_waldump to extract FPIs from the WAL
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 5:47 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 4:47 AM David Christensen
> <david.christensen@crunchydata.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:36 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:44:34PM -0600, David Christensen wrote:
> > > > I can get one sent in tomorrow.
> >
> > This v10 should incorporate your feedback as well as Bharath's.
>
> Thanks for the patch. Here're some minor comments:
>
> 1. +my $node =  PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster->new('primary');
> Can the name be other than 'primary' because we don't create a standby
> for this test? Something like - 'node_a' or 'node_extract_fpi' or some
> other.

Sure, no issues.

> 2. +$node->init(extra => ['-k'], allows_streaming => 1);
> When enabled with allows_streaming, there are a bunch of things that
> happen to the node while initializing, I don't think we need all of
> them for this.

I think the "allows_streaming" was required to ensure the WAL files
were preserved properly, and was the approach we ended up taking
rather than trying to fail the archive_command or other approaches I'd
taken earlier. I'd rather keep this if we can, unless you can propose
a different approach that would continue to work in the same way.

> 3. +$node->init(extra => ['-k'], allows_streaming => 1);
> Can we use --data-checksums instead of -k for more readability?
> Perhaps, a comment on why we need that option helps greatly.

Yeah, can spell out; don't recall exactly why we needed it offhand,
but will confirm or remove if insignificant.

> 4.
> +        page = (Page) buf.data;
> +
> +        if (!XLogRecHasBlockRef(record, block_id))
> +            continue;
> +
> +        if (!XLogRecHasBlockImage(record, block_id))
> +            continue;
> +
> +        if (!RestoreBlockImage(record, block_id, page))
> +            continue;
> Can you shift  page = (Page) buf.data; just before the last if
> condition RestoreBlockImage() so that it doesn't get executed for the
> other two continue statements?

Sure; since it was just setting a pointer value I didn't consider it
to be a hotspot for optimization.

Best,

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Error-safe user functions
Next
From: David Christensen
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Teach pg_waldump to extract FPIs from the WAL